I'm not Stefan, and I want his reactions on certain points, but FWIW: --- Dale Anson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Several questions at once, they sort of led one to > another... > > First question(s) -- > I wanted to use the XmlProperty task. I have a > custom task that > provides some xml as output in a property. The > XmlProperty task only > reads from a file, so I needed to write my property > value to a file so I > could read it back in with XmlProperty, which seems > like an unnecessary > step. It's a pretty simple modification to > XmlProperty to allow it to > accept xml in a property rather than a file. Is > there any interest in > this modification? Or would this question be better > placed on the user list? I haven't seen you around the lists for awhile until recently, Dale... The ongoing resource collection work in Ant HEAD seeks to address this exact type of situation in a generic way. The "right" fix, therefore, IMO is to modify XmlProperty to accept its input from a resource. Since in the case of this task a single resource is wanted as input it doesn't seem right to accept a whole resource collection, although I suppose that is one option. This leads me to an issue I've been waiting to present for some time: does Ant >= 1.7 need a mechanism for specifying a specifically typed resource from a String, and accompanying modifications to IntrospectionHelper to... help with the introspection? :) e.g.: file:foo url:http://ant.apache.org/index.html property:foo etc. ? Hopefully replies to this email will fragment into separate threads, but now I will address the antunit issue. :) > > Second question -- > I went ahead and made the modifications to > XmlProperty to read from a > property, and thought to submit a patch. A while > back, I wrote some > unit test tasks and use them a lot for testing > custom tasks. I noticed these when I was going through the split task. ;) These are > a lot easier and faster to write than the junit > tests. I just can't > seem to get motivated to actually write a junit test > for an Ant task, I know the feeling! > and I recalled that Stefan had mentioned that he'd > wrote some unit > testing tasks also. A quick google found them in > the Ant Sandbox area > as AntUnit. Would it be acceptable to submit a > patch to a core task > that included a unit test that uses the AntUnit > library? > I hope Stefan makes it clearer (if he's taken it that far) how we can integrate antunit into Ant's testing to eventually replace junit (my ambitious hope anyway). > And last question, for Stefan -- > Do you want any help with AntUnit? I see you've set > the compatibility > level for Ant 1.7. I commented out one line so I > can run it with Ant 1.6.5. > The only problem I see with that is that I had planned to make antunit also support ResourceCollections... so back to 1.7 if we did that. I suppose we could always retrofit after 1.7 release if we wanted a release compatible with 1.6.5 though. -Matt > Thanks, > > Dale > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
