On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 21:36, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am still fairly sure I don't like anton (or javaon) style > > functionality at all. > > Well, I don't like them as add-on tasks either, but as we won't get > full fledged iteration functionality otherwise ... > > The rationale for <apply> (or <execon>) is to extend what is nice > about <javac> to other types of compilers, something like > > <apply executable="gcc"> > <srcfile /> > <arg value="-c" /> > <arg value="-o" /> > <targetfile /> > > <fileset dir="src/C" includes="*.c" /> > <mapper type="glob" from="*.c" to="*.o" /> > </apply> > > ... you get the idea. > > <javaon> follows from the same logic, just giving you the opportunity > to use execution in the same VM if the compiler happens to be written > in Java (many idl2java or sqlj compilers are, for example). > > That the same construct can be used to fill different needs, well, > yes, this is true, so what?
As I think I have said before. Neither need should be filled using this style task. The first need should be filled by writing a task and the second need should be filled by templating. Currently Ant1 tasks are a PITA to write so first style functionality is acceptable. I don't see this as always being true though. Either way it is functionality that does not bring value in long term. Or are you saying that <apply /> is a better construct than implementing the task properly ? -- Cheers, Pete The big mistake that men make is that when they turn thirteen or fourteen and all of a sudden they've reached puberty, they believe that they like women. Actually, you're just horny. It doesn't mean you like women any more at twenty-one than you did at ten. --Jules Feiffer (cartoonist) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
