----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Most likely I would -1 it but it would depend upon how it was implemented
> essentially. I think it is really poor design of tasks that would require
> this and would almost certainly reject any task that used it ;)
I would implement it using the interface that I proposed, and that Jose
refined. Simple as that, and probably would only involve a few lines of
code (at least it should :).
Would you -1 that implementation? I just want to know before I code it and
get shot down! :)
How does implementing this open the flood gates to bad things?
> That could be said of lots of things. Many people would not consider
mutable
> propertys a hack because it adds a lot of capability and only becomes
> apparent if someone actually uses it.
>
> Feel free to repeat this argument for any of the other similar features ;)
Fair enough! :)
> So far I haven't actually seen a good use for it. Can you give me a good
use
> case ? The only one provided is directly due to limitations in Ant1.x
model.
> When these limitations are removed there would be no need for DynaTask. So
> besides the specified case have you got another example ?
The XDoclet use-case is the only use-case I have in mind now.
Keep in mind that I'm of the opinion that Ant probably should be using
XDoclet in the future to allow a lot of a tasks configuration to be
specified in meta-data allowing documentation to be generated as well as any
other artifacts needed (configurator Java classes perhaps?).
Erik
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
