> From: Magesh Umasankar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > From: Matt Benson <gudnabrsam () yahoo ! com> > Date: 2004-06-23 17:43:46 > > > code? So no, having local variables does not give us anything we > > can't do, but it does save us having to > > That is what I was trying to ensure. > > > pollute the Project properties with e.g. 500 useless properties. > > -0. I don't think the above is a big concern of mine. > > > What if the third-party container would NOT like to > > support the <break> task? > > They wouldn't delegate task execution to > TaskContainerUtils.executeTaskList > > > This starts to change the intent of what a Task does, no? > > No. The task does what it does when it is invoked. > The container decides if the task is to be invoked at all. > And it is eventually the user who decides that a <break> > is needed and not Ant or any of the task containers. >
But you are changing the contract of <sequential/>. If I have a task that inherints from Sequential (under the old contract) now I may get some wird unexpected behavior I never asked for. There are plenty of tasks out there that inherit from sequential because sequential was the most innocuous task out there is just did execution delegation and nothing else. Not it would start making decisions their task were never designed to do. Chhers, Jose Alberto --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
