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=22901>. 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=22901 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-08 23:53 ------- Hmm.. I didn't see where you were going with the childExecutor before, but I just looked at this again and I don't hate it. After 1.6.3 comes out I don't want to alter the Executor interface unless I have to so I will be thinking about this. Maybe when (if) we start doing Ant libraries there could be an executor library; otherwise I don't necessarily want to get into adding a million of them to core. But would OnlyExecutor not want to return itself as a child? If I add the child I will probably do an AbstractExecutor with a default getChildExecutor() {return this;} and make all existing Executors inherit from that. Then I'd probably add an executor attribute to the Ant task as well. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
