on of "classloading in Ant X.X.X/Ant 1.6"
exist?
Regards,
Morten Sabroe Mortensen
-Original Message-
From: peter reilly
To: Ant Developers List
Sent: 14-08-03 10:36
Subject: Re: beating the dead Ant 1.6 horse
On Thursday 14 August 2003 06:38, Costin Manolache wrote:
> Cono
Costin,
> > This raises a question: Are properties whose values are resolved by
custom
> > PropertyHelpers always converted to Strings? I see that the return type
> > of PropertyHelper#getPropertyHook(String, String, boolean) has Object as
> > the
> > return type. But if that's always converted
Knut Wannheden wrote:
> Sounds great!
>
> In anticipation of this feature I have used a few namespaced properties
> for
> my custom tasks. And since Ant 1.5 doesn't have any value for these, I've
> just made the tasks resolve them explicitly.
>
> This raises a question: Are properties whose val
Yes. PropertyHelper is a property interceptor, and it simply rocks.
In essence, you register a helper with Ant. Then, at each request for
a property, each registered helper is asked for the property value in
turn; the first one that has it, returns it.
Completely not following this property helpe
Sounds great!
In anticipation of this feature I have used a few namespaced properties for
my custom tasks. And since Ant 1.5 doesn't have any value for these, I've
just made the tasks resolve them explicitly.
This raises a question: Are properties whose values are resolved by custom
PropertyHelp
On Thursday 14 August 2003 06:38, Costin Manolache wrote:
> Conor MacNeill wrote:
> > The others are antlib/namespace/polymorph stuff. I'm wondering if we can
> > get to the point where the ant optional tasks are packaged as antlibs and
> > potentially not added to the root loader if their supporti
Dominique Devienne wrote, On 12/08/2003 15.37:
I'm also interested PropertyHelper, and in particular Costin's
experimental XPath based one. I'd like to be able to define
functions (defined as part of an AntLib) to operate directly on
property values, kind of like XPath functions, and it sounds like
Conor MacNeill wrote:
> The others are antlib/namespace/polymorph stuff. I'm wondering if we can
> get to the point where the ant optional tasks are packaged as antlibs and
> potentially not added to the root loader if their supporting libraries are
> not also available to the root loader. This w
way to get this!?!? --DD
> -Original Message-
> From: Knut Wannheden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:33 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: beating the dead Ant 1.6 horse
>
> > > The others are antlib/namespace/polymorph stuff. I'
> > The others are antlib/namespace/polymorph stuff. I'm wondering if we can
> > get to the point where the ant optional tasks are packaged as antlibs
and
> > potentially not added to the root loader if their supporting libraries
are
> > not also available to the root loader. This would allow them
On Tuesday 12 August 2003 04:20, Conor MacNeill wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 06:53 am, Matt Benson wrote:
> > I know the quote is "there is no timeframe yet on this
> > release". But is there a ballpark? 2003? Some
> > particular half of 2004?
>
> Ant 1.6 is very much alive, IMHO.
>
> 2003. :-)
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 06:53 am, Matt Benson wrote:
> I know the quote is "there is no timeframe yet on this
> release". But is there a ballpark? 2003? Some
> particular half of 2004?
>
Ant 1.6 is very much alive, IMHO.
2003. :-)
IMHO, I would hope to have it soon (where soon is undefined :-)) b
I know the quote is "there is no timeframe yet on this
release". But is there a ballpark? 2003? Some
particular half of 2004?
Thanks,
Matt
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
---
13 matches
Mail list logo
