> From: Matt Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > From: Magesh Umasankar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > [SNIP] > > > Easy to provide backwards compatibility here - > > > > > > <sequential breakable="true"/> > [SNIP] > > I think it is ugly, and there is no reason for > > modifying <sequential/> > > when you could just as well define a diferent task, > > like > > the "<block/>" I proposed. (Not stuck on names, pick > > a name > > more of your liking). > > > > It is much more easy to write <block> ... </block> > > than > > <sequential breakable="true"> ... </sequential> > > Then we have something like Java labels; this whole > concept is starting to sound like something from > ant-contrib.
Maybe that is where <break/> and co. should go. I really -1 the idea of changing <sequential/> and add a burden on people that already use and extend that Task just so that <break/> (which I preatty much like as an idea) can peggyback part of its functionality on it. It seems wrong to me. I also think several of antcontrib constructs should be migrated to ANTCORE (since they are more than proved their usefulness). But that is a separate battle. So in the mean time, maybe the right thing to do is to implement this functionality in antcontrib and let it mature by allowing people to use and to find any problems away from the core. To me antcontrib should be considered as a sort of laboratory of ideas, and there should be a way for those ideas to migrate back into the core once they have proved their usefulness/pupularity/etc. Jose Alberto --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
