yes, I believe you did. all what you mentioned can be supported with new attributes without breaking compatibility. no? in anycase I don't feel strongly about the subject. thanks for considering my point of view.
|Iyad Elayyan |j2eedev_us |Oracle Corporation -----Original Message----- From: Steve Loughran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 12:28 PM To: Ant Developers List Subject: Re: ant task calling subprojects ----- Original Message ----- From: "Iyad Elayyan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 10:17 Subject: RE: ant task calling subprojects > thanks for your reply, > Steve L brought subant to my attention, my point was <ant> task is already > there and it's supposed to call subprojects in that fashion, so instead of > adding another abscurely named task we modify <ant> without breaking it's > back compatibility, which is what I provided. > <ant>, <antcall> and <subant> should really be wrapped up under <ant>. > > I recall in my email directly to you that I argued in favour of subant, precisely because we can be incompatible in interesting ways: -have different defaults for inheritance -map target="" to default target -add a failonerror -add the ability to specify a list of targets, in order, maybe with their own 'ifpresent' and failonerror attrs. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
