On 26 Jun 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that as tasks are now types, the getTypeDefinitions()
> should now return everything.
Yes, I'm aware of this. But there may be custom tasks - other than
- that rely on the old separation of things.
> If this is a problem,
On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 16:17, peter reilly wrote:
> Yep, I realize that getTaskDefinitions returns
> an empty table and that this behaviour is not
> backward compatible.
>
> The problem is that as tasks are now types, the getTypeDefinitions()
> should now return everything. Current code that use
>
Yep, I realize that getTaskDefinitions returns
an empty table and that this behaviour is not
backward compatible.
The problem is that as tasks are now types, the getTypeDefinitions()
should now return everything. Current code that use
getTaskDefinitions also need to to call getTypeDefinitions() to
On 26 Jun 2003, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * unifies the type and task definitions into one table
the only problem with this I see is that we are causing a potential
backwards incompatibility with Project.getTaskDefinitions now
returning an empty table - I don't think this is correct (reme
peterreilly2003/06/26 01:54:29
Modified:docs/manual/CoreTasks taskdef.html typedef.html
src/main/org/apache/tools/ant ComponentHelper.java
Project.java ProjectHelper.java
RuntimeConfigurable.java TaskAdapter.java
