DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23942>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23942 Addition of a local property ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-22 12:03 ------- True, if I wrote the macro, but if I am using something from an antlib, lets say: <A/> and <moreA/>. Two tasks defined in an antlib. I shouldn't need to know whether they are macros, tasks in beanshell, java or whatever. I should be able to just use them. Now, this two tasks happen to communicate with each other. For example, <A/> will test some condition and <moreA/> will use this result to do something clever. I should not need to know that, the only thing I should know is that I must call <A/> before I call <moreA/>. But just because I decided to call <A/> inside my <B/> then the whole thing falls appart. :-( Now, my comment about scopes, was that maybe in "A" I could say scope="antlib" and that will make the scope of the property that of the antlib, which means that only things defined on that "antlib" will see it. Now that would give a lot of abstraction power. But it is yet another hurdle for any proper implementation. Notice that this would have to work not only for macros but also for regular tasks with some additional API that allows specifying the scope when I call Project.setNewProperty(). --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
