On Wednesday 27 March 2002 07:34 am, Adam Murdoch wrote: > Why you can't create a new Jar object for each iteration?
a) it's just fun to hack ant ;) b) i could, but it'd require more re-configuration of each object than i really wanted to deal with. > Or use <foreach>? Writing a foreach each time i want to do this in a build.xml is a real drag (and i've learned the hard way that copy/paste is evil, so i avoid it ;). > > Alternately, i could change MatchingTask.setIncludes() to clear > > the list if > > passed null? While i honestly cannot imagine that anyone depends on the > > existing behaviour, i'm not sure enough about it to try to change that > > behaviour. > > The existing behaviour is used in cases like the following: > > <jar includes="some-pattern"> > <include name="another-pattern"/> > </jar> > Sorry, i wasn't clear: what i meant was someone relying on the fact that it does NOT clear the list if setIncludes( null ) is called. Conceptually, something like this, though i doubt null would be passed in here: <jar includes="some-pattern"> <include name=""/> </jar> > If you really, really want to clear the set of includes, then add a method > that explicitly does so, rather than overloading setIncludes(). Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and would let me do exactly what i was attempting. Diane suggested that, as well, but the suggestion hasn't seemed to go over really well. It would require a resetter in PatternSet and FileSet (PatternSet contains FileSet). ----- stephan Generic Unix Computer Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.einsurance.de Office: +49 (89) �552 92 862 Handy: �+49 (179) 211 97 67 "...control is a degree of inhibition, and a system which is perfectly inhibited is completely frozen." -- Alan W. Watts -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
