ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: [RFE] Richer Task Specification
Date Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:40:58 GMT
>>>>> "PD" == Peter Donald <> writes:

 PD> Is it often that the value of one attribute will effect the value
 PD> of another ? ie Does this happen often enough for it to be an
 PD> issue ?

In the case of one attribute being a directory that should be expanded
to a file list it seems more likely that the list will be constraint
by other attributes (judging from my own buildfiles where about two
third of all MatchingTask implementations I call use include/exclude

 PD> okays thou I would hate to do logging on a task level. How do you
 PD> overide it ?

You can't by now. The way it has been proposed (not formally BTW) went
something like this:

add a final setLoglevel method to task - so each task has an attribute
named loglevel, remove the log method from Project and move it to
Task, let all Tasks use log() whenever they want to emit something, if
no explicit loglevel has been specified for a task, use the projects

Add to this a setOutput method and let task log either to an
explicitly specified output file or to the project default - that can
be set via the -logfile switch.

Now you could specify the detail of logging and decide where the logs
go on a task by task basis - or don't specify anything with regard to
logging in the build file and things work like they always did.

As to your wish to only display the output on some conditions - apart
from the loglevel - I'm not sure. It doesn't feel right to me to
bother the build tool with this - I would probably prefer a custom
logfile postprocessor task .

 PD> BTW spec/core.html is dated "Version 0.5 (2000/04/20)" and
 PD> doesn't seem to contain all I thought it would .. is there a new
 PD> version or should it be considered a work in progress ??

You should consider anything as a work in progress 8^). 

Unfortunately Ant has slipped a little bit down on the priority list
of many of those people that used to be active contributers - no
offense implied! 

The document you mention was the result of two weeks of very active
discussion, after that some things have been clarified but no-one took
the time to update the document, sorry. The best thing you could do is
to get the mailing list index and read up on the threads with subjects
that start with "Ant principles".


who still doesn't speak for the Ant development and hopes that others
have an opinion to your ideas as well.

View raw message