--- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > as I stated in another thread, I don't feel bad for > extending > ConditionBase but if a majority here would prefer > AsserTask to stick > with a simple add(Condition) in a task derived > class, I'd be up for it > as well. I'd only want to see this straightened out > before we release > the first AntUnit beta, which is why I'll try drive > this to a closure > pretty quickly. > > Can we have a little poll here, please: > > (1) Would you prefer a version of AssertTask that > didn't extend > ConditionBase?
I wouldn't fight it, but I don't see the need, personally. -Matt > > If so > > (2) Would you want AntUnit to silently typedef all > existing conditions > into the AntUnit namespace? People wouldn't > even notice. > > or > > Would you prefer users to explicitly use an > antlib to use the > existing core conditions? > > Stefan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
