At 10:53 2/4/01 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >Tim Vernum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>> > When it is a container task or a dynamic one like proposed for >>> > property. ie >>> > >>> > <if test="..."> >>> > <some-other-task/> >>> > </fi> >>> >>> I still don't get it, sorry. Somehow >>> If.createTask("some-other-task") or similar would have been called >>> anyway, wouldn't it? >> >> Unless a brainfart is getting to me, then the current API would do >> >> Task taskIf = new IfTask() ; >> taskIf.createSomeOtherTask() ; >> >> which is not what you want. > >Pete referred to "container task", which is another request, that all >people seem to agree with - i.e. extend the current API to let Tasks >have arbitrary task children via something like a createTask(String) >method.
Yep but instead of adding complexity to engine I was thinking we could provide a AbstractContainerTask that got passed configuration and and did that "under the covers". This way everything is still simple for us to maintain ;) No magic interfaces - the users are given as much power as they want/can-handle. Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
