> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent Bergbauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > What I'd like to see for 1.3
> > ============================
> >
> > (*) Vincent's submissions in the data type area.
> >
> > Collecting command line arguments that occur over and over again for
> > example. Vincent, what do you think about <argset> and <arg> as
> > separate entities instead of overloading <arg> to be a
> container and a
> > single argument at the same time?
> >
> No problem with the names. I am a little busy right now, but
> I should reincorporate my changes within a couple weeks
> if the CVS submission rate subsides a bit...
>
>
I really, think it would be more usefull we we could define new
tasks which just provide a predefined set of parameters for
normal tasks. A loose set of arguments as a datatype is a very strange
concept that smells to me like a MACRO expansion.
I would prefer having something like closures:
<taskdef name="mycommand" >
<java classname="....." >
<classpath refid="..." />
<sysproperty key=".." value="..." />
<arg value="..." />
</java>
</taskdef>
....
<target ... >
<mycommand>
<arg file="..." />
</mycommand>
</target>
Here the <mycommand> task is equivalent to:
<java classname="....." >
<classpath refid="..." />
<sysproperty key=".." value="..." />
<arg value="..." />
<arg file="..." />
</java>
If I had this functionality, I could reduce my build files for at least 50%
and they would be 10X more readable.
Jose Alberto
PS: This is not just for the <java> task, but for any other task.
