On Mon, 2003-07-07 at 09:37, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On 07 Jul 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I am not sure that that depending on an undocumented (I think) > > feature of Vector/Enumeration is a good idea. > > I agree, though it is sort-of documented in Vector's javadocs (the > class description). > > ,---- > | The Iterators returned by Vector's iterator and listIterator methods > | are fail-fast: if the Vector is structurally modified at any time > | after the Iterator is created, in any way except through the > | Iterator's own remove or add methods, the Iterator will throw a > | ConcurrentModificationException. Thus, in the face of concurrent > | modification, the Iterator fails quickly and cleanly, rather than > | risking arbitrary, non-deterministic behavior at an undetermined time > | in the future. The Enumerations returned by Vector's elements method > | are not fail-fast. > `---- Missed that, I should look at the javadocs as well as the code ;-)
> > So if we agreed that it is OK to add/remove tasks to the target > currently being executed, we simply needed to provide a better > implemenntation than the old one. 8-) It would be difficult to provide a different implementation. > > I tend to agree that we shouldn't allow that use-case, which leaves us > at the point that we need to document it. Doing it in the javadocs of > Target is one place, <script>'s documentation and the developer > section of the manual as well - any other places? Those should be more that sufficient. A thing to note though is that the script task, and any custom task can interact with the Ant runtime mechanism. This is a good thing, but one needs to be extremely careful as internal ant mechanisms may change from release to release, even if the api does not change. Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
