ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <>
Subject Re: ClassLoaders ( was: Re: We need to stop the lies)
Date Sat, 02 Mar 2002 12:32:08 GMT
From: "Peter Donald" <>

> On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 02:36, wrote:
> > > > Most of this proposal is very easy to implement and represents
> > > > small ( and natural, IMHO ) extensions to the current
> > > > model, with full backward compatibility and ( again IMHO )
> > > > full control and flexibility for the user.
> > >
> > > Implement it as tasks and you are much higher chance of getting it in.
> >
> > Well, given your ( completely unjustified IMHO, but unfortunately
> > seconded by another commiter, so validated ) -1 on the TaskAdapter
> > improvements I'm not very inclined to get anything in - what can be
> > implemented as a task can be kept outside without any problem
> > and interference. I strongly believe we already have too many
> > tasks in ant, and grouping them in libraries is better.
> >
> > I'm focusing on adding the hooks I need and making the core
> > changes only.
> You don't need any changes to ants core tasks to implement the functionality. 
> You could quite easily go to commons and implement it over there against 
> ant1.4.1

When I look at the core I see direct calls to TaskAdapter, and I see
direct calls to Class.newInstance() to create a task.

That seems to me stops any posibility of adding new tasks that use
a different factory pattern to create themselves. It also stops any
change for people to define a different name space for their extended
tasks because there is no way to plug them into core.

> Given how unlikely it is that your changes will be accepted into the main 
> tree I would recomend that as the best path forward.

The only thing I see of doing this is with something like:

<target ...>
        <myExtendedTask ....>
        <!-- I would like to put here regular tasks also
            but that is imposible given the current rules for TaskContainer -->

Now, how ugly is that?

The truth of the matter is that there is very little in this regard that can be done
without touching core.

Jose Alberto

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

View raw message