Hi,
I was wondering what the current status of the planned IVYDE release is.
Personally I think it would be nice if the suggested alpha release would be
built on top of an an updated official IVY release (either as beta 3 or as
rc1). Then we would have both in sync.
Any other comments, sug
Dominique Devienne wrote:
I'd add that those properties, if made available, should probably be
prefixed with ant., to make it clear they are "built-in". Perhaps:
ant.default-target
ant.targets-invoked
I'm +0 on adding these "static" properties.
Since we're at it, we may also want to expose ant
Le lundi 2 juin 2008, Scheper, Erik-Berndt a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering what the current status of the planned IVYDE release is.
> Personally I think it would be nice if the suggested alpha release would be
> built on top of an an updated official IVY release (either as beta 3 or as
> rc1).
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dominique Devienne wrote:
>>
>> I'd add that those properties, if made available, should probably be
>> prefixed with ant., to make it clear they are "built-in". Perhaps:
>>
>> ant.default-target
>> ant.targets-invoked
>>
>
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd add that those properties, if made available, should probably be
> prefixed with ant., to make it clear they are "built-in". Perhaps:
>
> ant.default-target
> ant.targets-invoked
The actual patch uses ant.current.target and
>> Since we're at it, we may also want to expose ant.current-target and
>> ant.invoked-target properties, but these are "dynamic" since
>> changing during the course of the build, so more problematic given
>> the property immutability rules.
>
> Just to make sure I understand what you are talking a
James Fuller wrote:
wouldn't it be great if property names were qnames and then we could do
ant:default-target
ant:targets-invoked
though I do not think the default namespace e.g.
antlib:org.apache.tools.ant is wholly appropriate as it concerns
itself with ant libraries.
I know ant doesn'
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, QNames are (a) evil (b) not part of XML; they ar part of the W3C XML
> Schema.
hehe, this was exactly the response I predicted.
ok, I will play along .
> I've just noticed the that Open Grid Forum's Open Grid Se
take a look at the spec for 'qualified name'
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#dt-NSName
qualified name
is a name subject to namespace interpretation.
[Definition:
An XML namespace is identified by
a URI reference [RFC3986];
element and attribute names
may be placed in an XML namespace usi
My problem with magic properties is that they pollute the namespace of
allowed property names. Since properties are immutable, it can be
confusing for someone to try to define a property for the first time in
their build file and have it come back with an error about redefinition.
Having said
10 matches
Mail list logo
