On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:02, Adam Murdoch wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, 25 February 2002 8:43 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: cvs commit:
> > jakarta-ant/proposal/myrmidon/src/testcases/org/apache/myrmidon/componen
> > ts/deployer DefaultDeployerTest.java TestConverter1.java
> >
> >
> >
> > Log:
> > Replaced usage of Avalon Context with Myrmidon specific Context:
>
> I wasn't really planning to do this, but hooked into it when I found that
> the converters weren't being handed a TaskContext in the new places where
> conversion is happening. It wasn't till I was almost done that I
> discovered TaskContextAdaptor.resolve(). Too late by that stage, the
> changes were all mixed up in the other stuff, so I kept going.
Blech. Really don't like this. Complicates the task API for little benefit
IMHO. If we were going to bind to ants specific notiong of a context then we
should bind directly to TaskContext.
> Personally, I prefer this approach, rather than adapting back and forwards
> between TaskContext and Avalon Context. Resolvable and Context are just a
> bit too general for my taste. However, I can roll this particular change
> back, if there's some compelling reason to go with the Avalon Context.
+1 to a revert. It is ugly now but I plan to rework this in the future to
make it easier to use. The main reason it is general is so that it it can be
used outside of ant with minimal interlinking. Similar to how the Converter
architecture is largely (all?) decoupled from ant/avalon atm.
So it may not be perfect now but I don't think creating a new Context object
is the correct answer.
--
Cheers,
Pete
When a stupid man is doing something he's ashamed of, he always
declares that it is his duty.
George Bernard Shaw
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
