ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Erik Hatcher" <>
Subject Re: custom selector problem
Date Tue, 21 May 2002 19:55:48 GMT

I think you are right on with the addConfigured stuff.  If you are deferring
all references to child elements until execute() then createXXX is
preferable as you have implemented it.  Although obviously something is
wrong somewhere, somehow.  Have you duplicated the issue?  If not, do you
want me to send you the code to duplicate?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Atherton" <>
To: "Ant Developers List" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: custom selector problem

> At 11:51 AM 5/21/2002 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> >Take a look at the recent version of develop.html (the "Supporting
> >nested elements" section) and see whether this helps.
> Thanks. I think I understand from the code what the basic difference is. I
> even understand conceptually - you are initializing depth first versus
> breadth first. What I don't understand is what the impact is on the rest
> the code during a build, particularly with regard to instantiations that
> seem to go "missing" like in my reference problem or Erik's example.
> In thinking about it now, the only reason that I can see to use
> addConfigured() is if the add* method wants to do something
> programmatically with the element object passed in rather than deferring
> that until execute() time. Are there any other reasons to use
> I'll go over the code again and make sure I don't break the rule to leave
> all execution to the execute() part of the life cycle. If I follow that
> religiously, I hope that I would never need addConfigured(). Somebody
> please contradict me if I am wrong.
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <>

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

View raw message