Jon Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > on 11/23/2000 7:42 AM, "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not sure I like <transform> as a name cause other tasks like > <style> are doing essentially the same thing that you are suggesting > the name <transform> is for.
Actually I was thinking of <jtransform> and <javaon> tasks to accompany <execon> and <transform> - removing the overhead of forking a new VM you'd have when using <execon> of <transform> for Java based transformations. <style> (and maybe even <javac>) should be made subclasses of <jtransform> after that IMHO. > > Why not: > > <execon transform="true"> I'd like to keep these task separate as they are doing quite different things. While <execon> really acts on all files, <transform> only works on a - well defined - subset of them. Of course I'm not sticking to the name <transform> for "the other task", it just seemed to describe the intended use cases quite well. Stefan
