ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>
Subject Re: Bug 5662
Date Mon, 13 May 2002 02:05:33 GMT

> (A) Always pass user-properties down as normal properties, that way
> inheritall doesn't make any difference and nested elements can override
> user properties.  This allows <ant*> to override command line
> settings, so it violates requirement (1) above.
> 
> For the remaining options I'll assume that user-properties will always
> be passed down as user-properties to make inheritall regular.

I think this is the best solution. My reasoning is that is the build 
file writer wants to make the params passed to a sub-build overridable, 
that can be achieved by justing using a property value in the subbuild 
param.

For example, if a build file has

<javac deprecation="true" .../>

the deprecation flag cannot be overridden on the command line.

ON the other hand, if the build file writer choonse to give a control 
point by

<javac deprecation="${deprecation}" .../>

then it can be controlled. I believe the situation with <ant*> is 
analagous. With

<antcall>
     <param name="deprecation" value="true"/>
</antcall>

the build file writer has chosen not to give an externally controllable 
value to the passed parameter, whereas the following does
<antcall>
     <param name="deprecation" value="${deprecation}"/>
</antcall>

> (C) Invent yet another type of property. 

I'd have to say that this just "smells" in the Martin Fowler sense.

Conor


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


Mime
View raw message