Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 10:53 2/4/01 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>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. Uhm, but then only AbstractContainerTask would need to provide access to these child elements. Maybe I'm a little slow here. And I was trying to simplify things when talking about container tasks above - I don't want to make that a task writer's responsibility either. Whether we do it by an abstract base task or a marker interface that would get some special treatment from the ProjectBuilder ... Stefan
