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=40561>. 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=40561 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 08:40 ------- A workaround is to not use the prefixed properties in the property file. I do not think that using prefixed properties are a good idea as it ties the property file to the <project file=.. prefix=..> call. As the property expansion is inconsistent in your example this is a bug - either all the prefixed properities should expand or none of them should. The reason for the current behaviour needs to be investigated, but it is most likely something to do with delaying setting the prefixed properties. example property file that works with current ant: interfaces.package=model interfaces.prefix= interfaces.suffix=BO interfaces.format={1}.${interfaces.package}.${interfaces.prefix}{2}${interfaces.suffix} factories.package=factory factories.prefix= factories.suffix=BOFactory factories.format={1}.${factories.package}.${factories.prefix}{2}${factories.suffix} foo={1}.${factories.package}.${factories.prefix}{2}${factories.suffix} -- 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]
