Re: cvs commit: ant/src/etc/testcases/taskdefs fail.xml

[Peter Reilly]

Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
You could also have an add(Condition) method and
that would allow your "no nesting required" notation without
having to extend ConditionBase.
 

This depends on getting the built-in conditions implemented as types, which
in turn depends on getting the "role" code in to deal with the "or" and 
"and"s
conditions/selectors.

Peter
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]

 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]