At 04:46 PM 2/25/2002 -0500, Magesh Umasankar wrote:
>On the same note, isn't <include> too another
>name for <filenamecull>?  You cull those files
>which match a specified file name pattern.

No, I would say that <include> is the thing that can _add_ entries to a 
pattern and <exclude> is the thing that can take entries back out but only 
once they are put in by an <include>. Now, with cullers and selectors, 
there are other things that can take entries out of a pattern. Thus, 
<exclude> is a form of culler/selector whereas <include> is its own beast.

>Anyway, the basic difference _conceptually_
>is you ask the user to select a set of files
>using <include> and then select a subset of
>them. Whereas, my proposal lets the user to
>select just the set of files that is needed.

Huh? Did I completely misunderstand your code?

My understanding is that selectors cannot add entries to a pattern, despite 
their name. They can only choose to veto the entries supplied by an 
<include>. So if you have two files like:

File.java - 10K
File.class - 8K

then this:

<fileset>
   <include name="*.java">
     <selector type="size"
       operation="greater-than"
       value="4K"/>
   </include>
</fileset>

selects only File.java, despite the fact that File.class passes the 
selector condition. Looks to me like it is selecting a subset of the files 
indicated by <include>, as well. If I am confused about this, then this is 
another argument against selectors since I doubt I'd be the only one 
confused (although perhaps I just confuse easily).

>Let us say, I want to include all files
>that have a size > 4 K but exclude those
>that are readonly with names beginning
>with "Test" with extension "jar" whose size
>is greater than 5K
>
>  <fileset>
>      <include name="**/*">
>          <selector type="size"
>              operation="greater-than"
>              value="4K"/>
>      </include>
>      <exclude name="**/Test*.jar">
>          <selector type="permission"
>              value="r"/>
>          <selector type="size"
>              operation="greater-than"
>              value="5K"/>
>      </exclude>
>  </fileset>
>
>How would you do that in your proposal?

(I pasted in your corrected version above).

You want a way to specify that all cullers should agree before a file is 
culled. Not a problem:

<fileset>
     <include name="**/*">
     <sizecull size="4" units="k" when="less"/>
     <agreecull>
         <sizecull size="5" units="k" when="more">
         <permcull attrib="readonly"/>
         <filenamecull name="**/Test*.jar/>
     </agreecull>
</fileset>

But your example is carefully selected, which demonstrates my point. It 
relies on the selection being related to the file name. If you remove that 
requirement, the problem becomes: I want to include all files that have a 
size > 4 K but exclude those that are readonly whose size is greater than 
5K. The answer flows nicely out of the problem:

<fileset>
     <include name="**/*">
     <sizecull size="4" units="k" when="less"/>
     <agreecull>
         <sizecull size="5" units="k" when="more">
         <permcull attrib="readonly"/>
     </agreecull>
</fileset>

The solution using selectors, though, is a little bizarre because it 
involves an <exclude> that starts off excluding everything, and then relies 
on its selectors to trim it to size. Is this trip really necessary?

<fileset>
     <include name="**/*">
         <selector type="size"
             operation="greater-than"
             value="4K"/>
     </include>
     <exclude name="**/*">
         <selector type="permission"
             value="r"/>
         <selector type="size"
             operation="greater-than"
             value="5K"/>
     </exclude>
</fileset>


>I am not saying I am happy with the generic
>way in which I have implemented it - I recognize
>though that there is no _clean_ solution
>in Ant1, where we can have Ant's selectors and
>user-defined pluggable selectors match up in
>syntax.

Ahh, but why is that necessary? What benefit is there in forcing every 
selector/culler into the same straightjacket?

With the cullers proposal, <sizecull> and <extendcull> are two different 
tags, with different attributes. User-defined cullers have to "match up" 
with the <extendcull> syntax, but there is still freedom for the standard 
cullers to do the right thing. I don't see a benefit to limiting all of 
them to a single interface, just because they belong to the same general 
category.

>Yes, that had been pointed out earlier.
>I was planning to rework it such that it
>could be defined from build.xml as well,
>just as you say youhave done it.

If it will help, I can clean up <extendcull> and post it. Let me know.



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>