Martijn Kruithof wrote:
If you make something like this (I don't see a direct benefit), why not make uptodate an taskcontainer so that you can wrap any task in there without the need of indirection via the sequential task.
But if you make <uptodate> a task container itself, it couldn't have nested elements that *weren't* tasks (such as it's existing feature of nested <srcfiles> or nested <mapper>). Right? Or maybe I'm missing something. But (even if I was) it seems like if you adopt this approach in general (and make it work), you could have problems with a task name conflicting with the name of a normally nested element.
I think it's much better to use a nested <sequential>. It wouldn't have to be called "sequential", of course, we could call it something else, like "runIfOutOfDate", but <sequential> seemed more fitting (since people will - presumably - already know what it does & what it should contain)
- Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
