-----Original Message----- From: Stefan Bodewig 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). [DD] Hmmm, I see your point. I personnally don't mind exposing this [DD] aspect of the implementation of SubAnt, especially when in fact [DD] a lot of tools look for the execution of Ant to find out about [DD] subbuilds. This point is kind of moot with your addition of [DD] SubBuildListener though. [DD] I still think that the fact that SubAnt must be aware of these [DD] I/O issues is not very clean, since not fully encapsulated in [DD] Ant itself. It would be better if Ant explicitly pushed its [DD] new Project on Ant's I/O subsystem to associate it to the current [DD] thread, popping it in a finally, and not have to make SubAnt [DD] or any task that internally uses an Ant instance (I have several!) [DD] explicitly deal with it. [DD] I hope I'm making sense. Thanks, --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
