Dominique Devienne wrote:

>>From: Matt Benson [mailto:gudnabrsam@yahoo.com]
>>
>>Yes, possible.  You say you're not sure whether that
>>would make you feel better.  What about you, DD?
>>    
>>
>
>I don't like using clone() at all, but I don't have
>good reasons either ;-)
>
>I'd prefer that only declared types be 'extended',
>and go thru the usual Ant mechanism to be instantiated,
>rather than using cloning. --DD
>
>  
>
I don't oversee the consequences good enough  of the clone task, what I did
notice though that while introducing the clone task a lot of methods in the
RuntimeConfigurable got synchronized, while ant generally is claimed to be
not thread safe, and the objects that are being cloned are not synchronized,
this didn't give me a particularly "warm" feeling.

Also the

  Assuming the clone operation is successful, the clone invocation supports
  any attributes and nested elements supported by the cloned type
  (the obvious exception is the "cloneref" attribute).
  <b>Please note that modifications to cloned objects may yield
  unpredictable results depending on the internals of the cloned class.</b>

description is in my eyes one big warning Dont use this, we don't know 
what it will do
If you don't change anything there is no need to clone, and if you do 
you may get unpredictable results.

So my opinion would be
<clone cloneref="DD's remark">
rephrase but keep the essence and doubts the same
</clone>
 ;-)

Martijn

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