Seems like scoped delegates would be handy, perhaps more so than straight-up delegate removal. It might be possible to use the existing notion of property scopes to support this.
Matt On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Jeffrey E Care <ca...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Yeah, I've been working on other projects for quite a while but recently I > got thrown back into low-level build stuff. I'm still trying to push some > Ant patches through IBM's legal approval process so if/when that ever > happens you're likely to see some more of me. > > Anyway, I figured that there was no way to remove delegates, so my hacky > work around will have to do for now I guess. I'm curious to get the > community's thoughts on this: would delegate removal be a valuable thing to > have? If there's a consensus that delegate removal is a good thing then I'm > willing to work on it and submit it with the other patches that I have in > the pipe. > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________ > Jeffrey E. (Jeff) Care > *ca...@us.ibm.com* <ca...@us.ibm.com> > IBM WebSphere Application Server > WAS Release Engineering > > [image: WebSphere Mosiac] > [image: WebSphere Brandmark] > > > > > > From: Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> > To: Ant Developers List <dev@ant.apache.org> > Date: 07/27/2011 02:48 PM > Subject: Re: Limit PropertyHelper delegates to a certain scope? > ------------------------------ > > > > Hi, Jeff! Seems like it's been awhile. :) > > Off the top of my head the only thing that occurs to me are > ant/antcall/subant: the tasks that create a new project. :/ > > Matt > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Jeffrey E Care <ca...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > I have a situation where I'm retrofitting some old code to use the > > PropertyHelper delegates that where added in Ant 1.8; in particular I > need > > to limit that scope to which a certain delegate is active. > > > > I know how to add a delegate but there doesn't seem to be any way of > > removing a delegate once it's no longer needed: they seem to persist > > forever. As a stop-gap I've added a way to "deactivate" my delegate such > > that it will always return the proper values so that the next delegate > will > > be invoked, but that seems like a poor work around. > > > > Is there a better way to do this? > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Jeffrey E. (Jeff) Care > > *ca...@us.ibm.com* <ca...@us.ibm.com> > > > IBM WebSphere Application Server > > WAS Release Engineering > > > > [image: WebSphere Mosiac] > > [image: WebSphere Brandmark] > > > > > >
