ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Antoine Levy-Lambert" <>
Subject Re: antlib / proposal of Peter Reilly
Date Thu, 15 May 2003 11:37:07 GMT
>This is true, but difficult to do. Some of the implementations of the
different features change/improve if other features are present. For
example the implementation of "onerror" uses the new anttypedefintion
class. The implementation of the psuedo task "antlib" uses the add(Type)
mechanism rather than explicity stating addTypedef and addTaskdef, this
allowed other tasks that extend Definer to used in the antlib task (for
example a definer that wraps Runnable objects as ant tasks, or
a future implemation of roles).

>Also from a practical point of view, I find it difficult to maintain
>patched ant versions.


>The add[Configured](Type) methods are meant more for container like
objects -
>like the antlib task, the filterchain type or the condition base class. It
>also allows custom extensions (e.g. new conditions) to be dropped in by
>party classes without special treatment.

This (addConfigured) is important for antlibs to work.


View raw message