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
41 matches
Mail list logo
