On 25 February 2010 17:53, Dominique Devienne <ddevie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Gilles Scokart <gscok...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Did you have any example to demonstrates the benefits of such task ? > > The benefits with conjunction with <import> could be important, in > that you can "mix-in" specialized pre-defined builds dealing with > specific concerns (like JAXB pre-compilation for example) and have > those builds "implicitly" augment the classpath or Javac source path > appropriately for example (as documented in those builds, and you do > explicitly import those, so are kinda in control). This is indeed a valuable use case. > Sure, it does open > the door for some complexity, and Ant would enter some un-chartered > waters indeed, but when trying to design reusable builds in the > (distant now) past, I've often felt the need for such a feature. Yet > it doesn't necessarily mean that would have been the right solution > either. I'd be interesting to have the input of the EasyAnt people on > the matter in fact. Yes, that would be interresting. > Maybe an opt-in approach, explicitly adding > final="false" on those datatype ids *designed* for extension, would be > a more conservative introduction of this feature, although that does > force to have "perfect hindsight" into what will be necessary to > extend/augment or not. --DD > > If we want to allow mutability, it seems indeed safer to keep immutability by default (for easier maintainability of the script). Note that there is an other benefits to immutability : it make it easier to make multithread system. The more support ant has for mutable datatype, the more complex it will be to make it multithread (and I believe that's one of the important evolution for the coming years). BTW, isn't already possible to overwrite a reference? If I remember well, it prints a warning but it replace the object. Gilles Scokart
