On Sun, 01 Jul 2007, Wascally Wabbit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 2) To isolate and control a set of property and reference
> modifications to a specific scope. Again this is within the scope of
> any task container and is not limited to macrodefs. This compliments
> the overlay function in that i
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry for the lag... I was sort of wondering if anyone
> else had anything at all to say here. :)
Reading, but without a strong opinion.
> Not even DD is talking anymore so I guess it's down to you and me,
> Peter, to decide where th
Hello all,
Sorry I've not been particularly linked into the Ant developers mailing
list recently...however, this is a discussion that might result in
significant pain for me if I don't chime in with my 2cents.
Rather than try to speak to specific points in this thread (some of
which I'm sure
--- Wascally Wabbit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Sorry I've not been particularly linked into the Ant
> developers mailing
> list recently...however, this is a discussion that
> might result in
> significant pain for me if I don't chime in with my
> 2cents.
>
> Rather than try to
Hello all,
Sorry I've not been particularly linked into the Ant developers mailing
list recently...however, this is a discussion that might result in
significant pain for me if I don't chime in with my 2cents.
Rather than try to speak to specific points in this thread (some of
which I'm sure I'v
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/28/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > As for consensus on the property setting extension
> point,
> > I think we stand at:
> >
> > You (Peter): +1
> > DD: strong -0?
> > Me (Matt): +0
>
> I'm +1 for the evaluator, and -0 for
On 6/28/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As for consensus on the property setting extension point,
I think we stand at:
You (Peter): +1
DD: strong -0?
Me (Matt): +0
I'm +1 for the evaluator, and -0 for the setter, although I do see the
need for a solution to properties being used in
Sorry for the lag... I was sort of wondering if anyone
else had anything at all to say here. :) Not even DD
is talking anymore so I guess it's down to you and me,
Peter, to decide where this is going: do-ocracy and
all...
--- Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Matt,
>
> I still
Thanks Matt,
I still think that we need to provide write access
to the properties.
Writing to expressions is used a lot for example with JSF and EL.
It may also be used to provide a "var:" prefix - to allow rewrittable
properties without using the work-around
(see ant in action (http://www.man
--- Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Matt,
> this is pretty neat.
Thanks for the compliment, and for checking it out!
:)
>
> Just a couple of points:
> 1) the svn does not have the common external pointer
> defined
Oops--I figured out how to do it but forgot that I had
to commit p
Hi Matt,
this is pretty neat.
Just a couple of points:
1) the svn does not have the common external pointer defined
2) how do the property helpers work with <*ant*> ?
Peter
On 6/26/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all--
Just wanted to be sure everyone who cares about this
threa
Hi all--
Just wanted to be sure everyone who cares about this
thread noticed
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42736
and the companion antlib at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ant/sandbox/antlibs/props
.
br,
Matt
--- Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Dominique De
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/22/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Let me divert the topic for a moment--the other of
> the
> > two most important property handling extension
> points
> > can be expressed with a PropertyEvaluator
> interface.
> > A perfec
On 6/22/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let me divert the topic for a moment--the other of the
two most important property handling extension points
can be expressed with a PropertyEvaluator interface.
A perfect example is Ant's built-in toString:refid
property "syntax". Basically tha
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/22/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Can we keep this discussion afloat? I've done a
> lot
> > of thinking on this issue over the past week and a
> few
> > days ago I had the epiphany that an Object-enabled
> > PropertyHelpe
On 6/22/07, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/22/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can we keep this discussion afloat? I've done a lot
> of thinking on this issue over the past week and a few
> days ago I had the epiphany that an Object-enabled
> PropertyHelper is leg
On 6/22/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can we keep this discussion afloat? I've done a lot
of thinking on this issue over the past week and a few
days ago I had the epiphany that an Object-enabled
PropertyHelper is legitimate if we think of the
"Property" part of the name as having a
--- Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/22/07, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On 6/22/07, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > Funnily enough I did restrict Properties to
> Strings
> > > > and all the tests passed. :)
> > >
> > > You mean I didn't w
On 6/22/07, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/22/07, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Funnily enough I did restrict Properties to Strings
> > and all the tests passed. :)
>
> You mean I didn't write a unit test when I fixed Bugzilla Issue 904?
> OK, what can I say?
On 6/22/07, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Funnily enough I did restrict Properties to Strings
> and all the tests passed. :)
You mean I didn't write a unit test when I fixed Bugzilla Issue 904?
OK, what can I say? hmm, trying to come up with a cheap excuse, March
2001, ah yes, Ant
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Matt Benson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Meanwhile I'll try restricting properties to
>> strings and see if we
>> > break anything internal.
>>
>> We hav
There is a bug in the JUnit task where it puts properties into a
Properties collection which then blows up if they are not Strings. I
will fix this weekend, hopefully.
Conor
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Meanwhile I'll try restricting p
--- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Matt Benson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile I'll try restricting properties to
> strings and see if we
> > break anything internal.
>
> We have had bug reports when some places in Ant
> assumed that all
> properti
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Meanwhile I'll try restricting properties to strings and see if we
> break anything internal.
We have had bug reports when some places in Ant assumed that all
properties would be strings.
One I could find with a quick search stems fro
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I am actively working on this as we speak,
> actually,
> > and I'm pleased so far with my results.
>
> FTR Matt, I still haven't read anything to convince
> me that write
> access via is
On 6/15/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am actively working on this as we speak, actually,
and I'm pleased so far with my results.
FTR Matt, I still haven't read anything to convince me that write
access via is desirable, needed, and good. I'm not trying
to put a damper on your ef
On 6/15/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Peter Reilly
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I don't get the Set part. How would that be
> used? The GetPR comes into
> > > play in a ${scheme:...} expansion, but how would
> th
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Peter Reilly
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I don't get the Set part. How would that be
> used? The GetPR comes into
> > > play in a ${scheme:...} expansion, but how would
> the SetPR work? --DD
>
> Thanks for the example Peter.
On 6/15/07, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't get the Set part. How would that be used? The GetPR comes into
> play in a ${scheme:...} expansion, but how would the SetPR work? --DD
Thanks for the example Peter. That's what I was waiting for.
There could be a number of uses for
On 6/14/07, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/14/07, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> interface SetPropertyResolver {
> boolean setProperty(Project a, String property, String value)
> returns true if property consumed
> return false if not
> }
I don't unders
On 6/15/07, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Before I comment further below, let me add that I support breaking
PropertyHelper, I don't really think it is in use too much and if
breaking helps with getting things right, we should do it (in 1.8.x).
It is used in a (small) number of proje
Before I comment further below, let me add that I support breaking
PropertyHelper, I don't really think it is in use too much and if
breaking helps with getting things right, we should do it (in 1.8.x).
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whether object properties are de
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Kevin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After throwing together a quick hack to support my substring
> properties use case, Matt suggested instead significant changes to
> the property helper class.
>
> After looking through the code this afternoon here are my thoughts
> o
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/14/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > --- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > I don't understand the SetPropertyResolver
> aspect.
> >
> > On further reflection, the Set* interface does
> make
> > sense, but
On 6/14/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't understand the SetPropertyResolver aspect.
On further reflection, the Set* interface does make
sense, but only as an extension to the Get* interface.
This would be the correct way to s
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/14/07, Peter Reilly
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > interface SetPropertyResolver {
> > boolean setProperty(Project a, String
> property, String value)
> > returns true if property consumed
> > return false if not
> > }
>
> I
On 6/14/07, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
interface SetPropertyResolver {
boolean setProperty(Project a, String property, String value)
returns true if property consumed
return false if not
}
I don't understand the SetPropertyResolver aspect. I like the GetPR,
although I'd
--- Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/14/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Urgh, looking over the PropertyHelper stuff, I
> wonder
> > if we shouldn't refactor it somewhat. It seems to
> be
> > overly complex to allow full PropertyHelper
> delegates.
> Yes it is overl
On 6/14/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Urgh, looking over the PropertyHelper stuff, I wonder
if we shouldn't refactor it somewhat. It seems to be
overly complex to allow full PropertyHelper delegates.
Yes it is overly complex.
(and full of bugs - esp with regard to child projects)
Urgh, looking over the PropertyHelper stuff, I wonder
if we shouldn't refactor it somewhat. It seems to be
overly complex to allow full PropertyHelper delegates.
It seems that we might be better off using a single
PropertyHelper (still replaceable) and adding Lists of
getPropertyResolvers and set
Thoughts inline:
--- Kevin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After throwing together a quick hack to support my
> substring
> properties use case, Matt suggested instead
> significant changes to the
> property helper class.
Sorry! :)
>
> After looking through the code this aft
Hi all,
After throwing together a quick hack to support my substring
properties use case, Matt suggested instead significant changes to the
property helper class.
After looking through the code this afternoon here are my thoughts on
a possible way to implement a configurable propertyHelper
1 -
42 matches
Mail list logo
