QUESTIONS ON PropertyHelper (Ant 1.6+) ANT-dev mailing list:
o Should PropertyHelper replacements honor currently attached hooks? What if a hook is attached and then the helper is unset (reset to the original Ant-installed one?) Should the (new) hooks be "moved" to the original helper?
o Can we create a formal method that gets/sets propertyHelper w/o generating reference-replacement warnings?
o What's the ant-dev position on recursive property resolution? Is it coming or is that value-added that one must put in one's own tasks?
o How do we propagate replaced helpers to sub-projects? What about sub-builds?
[NEW} Sooo how would custom PropertyHelpers and Hooks work with the selected <local> proposals?
Thanks, The Wabbit
At 05:36 AM 10/8/2004, you wrote:
Hi,
I have had a proposal outstanding for a while for local properties:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23942
I would like to see them included in ant. There has been a (lot) of discussions - see
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=108765926600001&r=1&w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=107030281800001&r=1&w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106916956400008&r=1&w=2
My current feelings (and implemenation) is
1) Syntax The proposal adds a local property to a enclosing target/taskcontainer.
Example: <target name="example"> <local name="prop" value="a local value"/> <echo>prop is ${prop}</echo> </target>
<macrodef name="t2"> <attribute name="file"/> <sequential> <local name="dir"/> <dirname property="dir" file="@{file}"/> <mkdir dir="${dir}"/> <touch file="@{file}"/> </sequential> </macrodef>
I think it is nicer to do this rather that having an explicit local property container, or having special elements for different types of structures (like for example a <local> element at the same level as <attribute> in a <macrodef>).
2) Shadowing of properties
The proposal allows local properties to shadow normal and user properties. I feel that this is necessary to allow macrodefs to be written without them failing sometimes. This means that the following will work:
<project> <import file="macros.xml"/> <property name="dir" value="."/>
<t2 file="${user.home}/.ant/lib/js.jar"/> </project>
ant -Ddir=/var/tmp
3) Extent of local properties
local properties will be inherited to child projects (if inheritall is true).
Peter
Stephan Bodewig wrote:Things we need to consider IMHO:
(1) Syntax
Your proposal uses a <local> task that sets up a local scope for a named property until the enclosing target/sequential finishes. Jose Alberto suggested to use a <local> TaskContainer instead, something like
<local> <local-property name="...."/> </local>
which would essentially just add an explicit (and differently named) <seqential> to your proposal. I think I prefer the more explicit, even if more verbose syntax of the second form.
(2) Shadowing of properties
Your updated proposal ensures that local properties do not override "global" user properties. I think they shouldn't be allowed to override any outer scope properties at all.
(3) Extent of local properties
You make the local properties available to <script> - will they also be available for builds that get called with the <ant> family of tasks (assuming inheritall is true)? I think they should be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
