ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Costin Manolache <>
Subject Re: Roles (was: antlib)
Date Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:17:17 GMT
peter reilly wrote:

> On Wednesday 30 April 2003 17:54, Costin Manolache wrote:
>> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> > On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, peter reilly <> wrote:
>> >> We are still left the problem of the Type create<Name>() pattern.
>> >
>> > I don't think that it was solvable.  Almost any soltion world require
>> > cooperation of the classes implementing the create method.
>> >
>> > What we can do is adapting all core classes that use the createPattern
>> > to also provide the add pattern (with modifications along the lines
>> > you suggest) - and make IntrospectionHelper favor addXYZ over
>> > createXYZ just as it setXYZ(SomeType) over setXYZ(String) now.
>> Can you explain again what's wrong with create ? I think I missed it...
> The problem is that create returns an object created by the class. Thus
> the use-as attribute would not be able to substitute a different object.
> The solution is to get for example Javac to implement a new addClasspath()
> method, with (minor) mods in the ant framework to allow path objects to be
> created by the framework.

But what does "create" has to do with the polymorphism ? 

All the discussions so far were about adding an addSomething() - while
leaving all existing use cases unmodified. 

I could see a problem with the existing add methods. 


>> My understanding was that whatever is in use today will continue to work
>> the same, we just add a new pattern at the end.
> Exactly.
> Peter

View raw message