ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Magesh Umasankar" <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: jakarta-ant/src/main/org/apache/tools/ant/types
Date Sun, 30 Dec 2001 16:23:01 GMT
From: "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <>

> I am not a commiter, but I completely agreed with
> Peter on this one. 8-o

One of the rare events ;-)

> This is a very substantial change, and as it has been
> stressed before anything we add to the API gets set in
> stone and we are stuck with it for the whole of ANT1´s
> life. Some comments below:

We are still in Alpha.  It is not set it stone yet.

> good idea to submit this things as proposals, and make
> all the changes to tasks there so one can understand
> the settle implications of things.

Point taken.

> For example, I had a real problem with the
> consequences of this change on <property>. The fact
> that an input file had to be managed as if it where an
> output file just to shortcut the validation, tell me
> that we have a problem. I cannot believe this will be
> the only place ever were we will have such a
> situation.

It was a bit hacky, yes.

> This to me is just syntactic validation and would be
> equivalent to verifying that the string being passed
> corresponds to a valid filename, whether it exists or
> not. This is what (I think) File(String) will (or
> should) do.

would be equivalent or would NOT be equivalent?

File(String), AFAIK, doesn't do any validations.
You can provide it whatever you want as the string
parameter and it will accept it without complaints.
It is only when you start to perform operations
on the object will it start complaining.  This is the
problem that I see.  Lots of code (built in included)
just doesn't validate enough.  There are places where
FIle.canread is checked, there are other places where
there is no check whatsoever on the file.

> Please, do not add new APIs which we already believe
> are broken or wrong. This is a problem we have had
> several times, someone adds some new idea with the
> best of intentions, there is little review or
> discussion because the person has committing rights,
> and then there is no way out of it when problems
> arise.

The situation is not so bleak as you project it to be.  I,
for one, have been open to viewpoints.  Also, we cannot
foresee what problems are going to arise.  By discussing
it just as we are doing now, I guess, we are walking the
right path.  If you do not review or discuss it just because
the other person has commiting rights, aren't you doing a
disservice?  I value you opinion, whether you have voting
rights or not.

> The commiters put a very high bar for non committers
> to get anything in, lots of discussions and -1s. But I
> do not perceive the same level of discussions when
> other committers make important changes.

Really!  I, at least, haven't been able to 'sneak' in
anything that seemed callous so far ;-)

> As I said, everyone is working with the best
> intensions in mind, but no one can forsee all the
> consequences of some changes.

Best of intentions, it was.  But if there is no other option
but to wait till Ant2 for all this, then so be it.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message