On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:42, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> From this thread, it seemed we could agree on most parts > > could you summarize?
I wanted to put it up for a formal vote once I had a feeling for the target scope issue. So far you, Conor and I agreed that we needed build file scope and make hierarchical scope explicit (with properties set on the command line and <param> within <ant>). And then there is <projectref> - could you expand on this as well please. > If we wanted we could easily block all possibility of tasks > implementing scope unlss they wanted to go to absurd lengths. True. If we implement TaskContainer (and therefore target) scope inside the core, we should do that. If we leave it to the containers, we leave it to the containers. I'm trying to collect the pros and cons of both approaches. TaskContainer scope will of course be needed by things like an <iterate> task. Stefan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
