On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [DD] What if instead of adding all these methods, we called > [DD] ant.perform() instead of ant.execute()!? > [DD] perform() fires the the taskStarted event, so would that be > [DD] enough? Would be a lot less code, no?
It would help with the I/O "problem" but at the same time cause a task started event for <ant> which would lead to some visible output. This would make the design choice of delegating to Ant use visible and even be confusing to users (which <ant> task? I never started an <ant> task). Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
