On Mar 22, 2010, at 5:42 AM, Jean-Louis Boudart wrote:
Sorry for the delay.
I really like the idea of being able to "augment" previously declared
reference. There is many uses cases where it can be useful.
For example, if ant can provides such feature it would simplify a
lot the
job in easyant for projects using many directories as source folder.
They will just need to augment the fileset used for source folder.
It makes also senses for other dataType.
I'm also +1 for the "final=false" attribute.
By the way i think the only use case that is discutable is for
<path>. Most
of the time we want to append something to an existing classpath,
so here
augment make sense. But how will the augment feature will help us
if we want
to prepend things in the classpath (for example if we use coverage
tools,
instrumented classes must be put before the compiled classes in the
classpath)?
In EasyAnt we've defined our own <path> task that handle this use
cases
(allowing prepend / append / overwrite).
Considering that this problem cannot be solved just by using "augment"
feature, should we improve the behavior of <path> task? or let each
projects
defined their own task to do this?
Is the augment feature already commited on trunk (i've not checked
the trunk
for a while)? Is it targeted to be in the 1.8.1?
It depends on the timeframe for 1.8.1. I haven't been able to
clearly gauge the general direction of majority opinion on the
"final" issue.
-Matt
My 2 cents
2010/2/25 Dominique Devienne <ddevie...@gmail.com>
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). 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. 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
--
Jean Louis Boudart
Independent consultant
Project Lead http://www.easyant.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
