Dominique Devienne wrote:
From: Matt Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, possible. You say you're not sure whether that
would make you feel better. What about you, DD?
I don't like using clone() at all, but I don't have good reasons either ;-)
I'd prefer that only declared types be 'extended', and go thru the usual Ant mechanism to be instantiated, rather than using cloning. --DD
I don't oversee the consequences good enough of the clone task, what I did notice though that while introducing the clone task a lot of methods in the RuntimeConfigurable got synchronized, while ant generally is claimed to be not thread safe, and the objects that are being cloned are not synchronized, this didn't give me a particularly "warm" feeling.
Also the
Assuming the clone operation is successful, the clone invocation supports any attributes and nested elements supported by the cloned type (the obvious exception is the "cloneref" attribute). <b>Please note that modifications to cloned objects may yield unpredictable results depending on the internals of the cloned class.</b>
description is in my eyes one big warning Dont use this, we don't know what it will do
If you don't change anything there is no need to clone, and if you do you may get unpredictable results.
So my opinion would be <clone cloneref="DD's remark"> rephrase but keep the essence and doubts the same </clone> ;-)
Martijn
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
