Thanks Costin. I also understand some of the philosophical arguments (not to become scripting), but when you see how confusing a buildfile looks and how many extra properties you need to add to the build just to avoid using <if>, you undestand that it is really needed.
The same argument can be made of the other tasks. Jose Alberto > -----Original Message----- > From: Costin Manolache [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 14 March 2003 15:47 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 1.6 milestones ? > > > peter reilly wrote: > > > The if, foreach, try, and switch tasks are out of ant > > for philosophical reasons ("ant is not a scripting language") > > I still share the philosophical reasons, but I wouldn't -1 > adding them. Many people use it ( I'm using them too ), and > it is clearly better to use a clear <if> instead of hacking > with the properties. > > Costin > > > > > > The generalized "if"/"unless" for inner elements idea is > > used (to great effect) by the cc tasks/datatypes. > > > > Another idea in cc is the use of an extend attribute to > > extend datatypes. > > > > Peter > > > > On Friday 14 March 2003 14:54, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > >> If we are going to take things out of ant-contrib > >> then we should take the <if>, <foreach>, <try> and <switch> > >> tasks out of ant-contrib and incorporate them into the main line > >> with good documentation. > >> > >> They have een stable for what (years?) and they are defenitly > >> useful, there is no sense on keeping them out of the main > line anymore. > >> > >> By the way, having <if> would eliminate the need to > sprinkle more tasks > >> with if and unless attributes which just makes everything > more confusing. > >> > >> What it would be nice is to have a way to generalize "if" > and "unless" > >> attributes in inner elements. So that one can use the > pattern we use on > >> <filesets> on other things. > >> > >> I.E.: > >> > >> <ejb .....> > >> .... > >> <weblogic ....... if="use.weblogic"> > >> <wlclasspath .../> > >> </weblogic> > >> <jboss ....... if="use.jboss"> > >> .... > >> </jboss> > >> </ejb> > >> > >> Which would add the <weblogic> or the <jboss> or both > depending on the > >> property settings. > >> > >> I can see all kinds of ways to simplify builds by having > something like > >> that. > >> > >> Jose Alberto > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > Sent: 14 March 2003 11:32 > >> > To: Ant Developers List > >> > Subject: Re: 1.6 milestones ? > >> > > >> > > >> > new features I would like in 1.6. > >> > > >> > 1) import task to import in-line > >> > at the moment, it imports at the end of the build file, thus > >> > messing up order for top level defines. > >> > 2) ability to have custom conditions - see bugzilla 17199 :-) > >> > 3) add if and unless attributes for some tasks > >> > e.g. in <exec> one can set os = whatever to enable > >> > running this task. But normally one would have set a property > >> > that would have depended on more conditions than the os. > >> > > >> > post 1.6 > >> > 4) move cpptasks from ant-contrib to main-line ant, in > the optional > >> > tasks area > >> > > >> > Peter > >> > > >> > On Thursday 13 March 2003 08:17, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > >> > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Costin Manolache > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > Do we have any plan or idea on when we'll start > distributing 1.6 > >> > > > milestone builds ? > >> > > > >> > > Ant has never released any milestone builds so far, so no, > >> > > >> > there is no > >> > > >> > > plan yet AFAIK. If there was, you'd know it for sure 8-) > >> > > > >> > > Before we release a milestone we should make sure that > whatever we > >> > > release at least passes our tests (including the > currently disabled > >> > > ImportTest) and doesn't have any known regressions > (see my mail of > >> > > yesterday). > >> > > > >> > > And then I'd really love to have a rundown of the new > >> > > >> > features (I was > >> > > >> > > swamped when you committed the parts coming from the > embed proposal > >> > > and lost track of it, a simple short list would suffice for > >> > > >> > starters) > >> > > >> > > and look at them one by one to get consensus on whether we > >> > > >> > want them - > >> > > >> > > if we can't agree on a given feature, it shouldn't be > included in a > >> > > milestone at all IMHO. > >> > > > >> > > Stefan > >> > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
