> From: Matt Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The fact that a fileset has a directory base is I > > think its basic design. > > I like mappers, don't get me wrong, but I have the > general feeling that different tasks may not always > use them the same way. I usually find myself having > to play a little to create a mapper to do exactly what > I want. This would be the same thing. Your filenames > are no longer relative; so what? Especially with the > container and chained mappers... if I have a fileset > rooted in ten different directories, even on different > roots (where available) I can set up a container > mapper to map each of them appropriately.
I agree with Peter. I don't like this. I'm all for a true File Set datatype with no basedir, but not for retrofitting FileSet into this concept. Just create such a new type, like <filebag>, which accepts nested filesets if you want, and adapt tasks can that conceptually deal with plain absolute file names, and leave the others alone dealing with FileSet. I'm balancing between a -1 and a -0 on this one... --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
