You could also have an add(Condition) method and that would allow your "no nesting required" notation without having to extend ConditionBase.
As a matter of fact, now that the introspector is able to deal with "add" methods. Shouldn't we deprecate ConditionBase and discourage people from using inheritance? It would produce a much clearer system. Jose Alberto > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 29 April 2004 11:38 > To: Ant Developers List > Subject: Re: cvs commit: ant/src/etc/testcases/taskdefs fail.xml > > > I see a small problem here. > Exit was extending Task, and now is extending ConditionBase. > ConditionBase does not extend Task so this breaks backward > compatiblity. > > It may be better to do this: > > <exit> > <condition> > <equals arg1="a" arg2="${dir.name}"/> > </condition> > </exit> > > rather that: > <exit> > <equals arg1="a" arg2="${dir.name}"/> > </exit> > > (Dispite the fact that I normally argue against extra nesting). > > Peter > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > * @since Ant 1.2 > > * > > * @ant.task name="fail" category="control" > > */ > > -public class Exit extends Task { > > +public class Exit extends ConditionBase { > > private String message; > > private String ifCondition, unlessCondition; > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
