----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sure. The base class would hide the part of the interface tasks don't > need, but it'd still be there and I can't see for what benefit.
I don't see why tasks shouldn't be restricted from having child elements... > > BTW, getAttributes() is exactly what is missing to support the > > integration of Ant into a GUI environment! > > Don't think so. I think task should have getters for the attributes as > well - this way you can simply get the attributes via reflection using > Java Beans methods, much better suited IMHO. Someone else shot down the idea of getters in Tasks as being too much of an implementation burden on developers. I also agree somewhat since getters/setters do not always correspond in an implementation class. Sometimes multiple setters combine to form one (complex) attribute in a class. Also collections are sometimes an exception. jim
