On Apr 7, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Bruce Atherton wrote:
On 06/04/2010 8:16 AM, Jean-Louis Boudart wrote:The objective of this thread is to take a decision on : - restriction on augment feature- and if the vote is in favor to choose one implementation design to doit So, What's your opinion ?My opinion is that what we really need is a VOTE thread: 1. Are you in favor of adding the augment feature to Ant?
+1
2. Are you in favor of an attribute that allows references to be marked as final, to avoid augmentation?
-0
3. If a final attribute is decided upon, do you think it should default to "false"?
+1
Of course, if people think that this hasn't been debated enough then we can continue the conversation and have the vote later.
Let's please consider the fact, as pointed out by Antoine, that there is more or less no way to prevent manipulation of references by Java or scripted tasks. That being the case it doesn't seem like a good investment of cycles to prevent this task from functioning. With my just-committed bugfix to RuntimeConfigurable, my current cut of AugmentReference code is completely self-contained which means that any third party could write the task and our proposed 'final' attribute would be meaningless. What might be doable is creating another task that would make read-only a reference by dynamically generating proxies that would hide setter-type (any parameterized?) methods, or something along those lines. _That_ could stop <augment> and other avenues from modifying a reference if that's really what we wanted. So I'd say these are separate concerns.
-Matt
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
