On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Jose Alberto Fernandez
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> Because the answer "Why aren't all the selectors being
>>> types?" is equally valid. Which one get
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Jose Alberto Fernandez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Jose Alberto Fernandez
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Why aren't all the conditions being types?
>>
>> Because the answer "Why aren't all t
The way Peter originally suggested to fix this was the
simplest. I originally coded up that change in
December or January, I think... it didn't strike me as
a BC issue because I didn't think about the
possibility that someone would want to extend
Exit/... oh, well...
-Matt
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mbenson 2004/04/29 14:25:40
Modified:src/testcases/org/apache/tools/ant/taskdefs FailTest.java
docs/manual/CoreTasks fail.html
src/main/org/apache/tools/ant/taskdefs Exit.java
src/etc/testcases/taskdefs fail.xml
Log:
Restore Task inheritan
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Jose Alberto Fernandez
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why aren't all the conditions being types?
>
> Because the answer "Why aren't all the selectors being
> types?" is equally valid. Which one gets typedefed as "a
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Jose Alberto Fernandez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why aren't all the conditions being types?
Because the answer "Why aren't all the selectors being types?" is
equally valid. Which one gets typedefed as "and"?
Stefan
---
> From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
>
> >You could also have an add(Condition) method and
> >that would allow your "no nesting required" notation without
> having to
> >extend ConditionBase.
> >
> >
> >
> This depends on getting the built-in condi
ce a much clearer system.
Jose Alberto
-Original Message-
From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 29 April 2004 11:38
To: Ant Developers List
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ant/src/etc/testcases/taskdefs fail.xml
I see a small problem here.
Exit was extending Task, and now is extendin
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Jose Alberto Fernandez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You could also have an add(Condition) method and
> that would allow your "no nesting required" notation without
> having to extend ConditionBase.
If all conditions inside Ant were known types, that is.
AFAIK they are not an
courage
people
from using inheritance?
It would produce a much clearer system.
Jose Alberto
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 29 April 2004 11:38
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ant/src/etc/testcases/taskdefs fai
I see a small problem here.
Exit was extending Task, and now is extending ConditionBase.
ConditionBase does not extend Task so this breaks
backward compatiblity.
It may be better to do this:
rather that:
(Dispite the fact that I normally argue against extra nesting).
Peter
[EMAIL
mbenson 2004/04/28 11:08:47
Modified:.WHATSNEW
src/testcases/org/apache/tools/ant/taskdefs FailTest.java
docs/manual/CoreTasks fail.html
src/main/org/apache/tools/ant/taskdefs Exit.java
src/etc/testcases/taskdefs fail.xm
12 matches
Mail list logo
