> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Jose Alberto Fernandez
>
> > To me macrodefs are for writing all those tasks that I am
> too lazy, or
> > they are too simple for me to need to go and write and
> maintain some
> > Java code.
>
> I'm not sure that this is the intention of <macrodef> - maybe
> you would rather use <scriptdef> with beanshell as your
> scripting language then?
>
I do use it extensively. And believe me, every time we have a
syntax or logical error in the code it takes 1o times longer
to find it. Line numbers never match with that of the srcfiles.
But back to the topic.
I want macrodef for when all I need to do is to put toguether
a group of calls to other tasks in a sequence, which could be
quite complex, but it does not require any additional computation
from my part:
<macrodef name="preferential-copy">
<attribute name="app-pref.name"/>
<attribute name="app-pref.dir/>
<sequential>
<mkdir dir="${app-prefs.dir}"/>
<dependset>
<srcfileset dir="${basedir}">
<include name="${app-prefs.name}/**"/>
<include name="${containers.dir}/${app-prefs.name}/**"/>
<include name="${descriptor.dir.app}/${app-prefs.name}/**"/>
<include
name="${descriptor.container.dir.app}/${app-prefs.name}/**"/>
</srcfileset>
<targetfileset dir="${app-prefs.dir}"/>
</dependset>
<if>
<available file='${descriptor.container.dir.app}/${app-prefs.name}'
type="dir"/>
<then>
<copy todir='${app-prefs.dir}'>
<fileset dir="${descriptor.container.dir.app}/${app-prefs.name}"
includes="**"/>
</copy>
</then>
</if>
<if>
<available file='${descriptor.dir.app}/${app-prefs.name}' type="dir"/>
<then>
<copy todir='${app-prefs.dir}'>
<fileset dir="${descriptor.dir.app}/${app-prefs.name}"
includes="**"/>
</copy>
</then>
</if>
<if>
<available file='${containers.dir}/${app-prefs.name}' type="dir"/>
<then>
<copy todir='${app-prefs.dir}'>
<fileset dir="${containers.dir}/${app-prefs.name}" includes="**"/>
</copy>
</then>
</if>
<if>
<available file='${app-prefs.name}' type="dir"/>
<then>
<copy todir='${app-prefs.dir}'>
<fileset dir="${app-prefs.name}" includes="**"/>
</copy>
</then>
</if>
</sequential>
</macrodef>
Today, I need to do this by calling <antcall> because I need to pass diferent
parameters in different places. It will look much better that instead of:
<antcall target="prefs.app">
<param name="app-prefs.name" value="war-res"/>
<param name="app-prefs.dir" value="${war-res.app}"/>
</antcall>
I can just say:
<preferential-copy app-prefs.name="war-res"
app-prefs.dir="${war-res.app}"/>
You can see that using scriptdef to do this job is absolute madness. Since all
you need is
to put toguether some tasks.
> > Substitution is the least interfearing behavior.
>
> I hear you and to a certain degree I agree with you.
> Actually I haven't really made up my mind myself yet - no
> vote from me so far.
>
> > But if <atributes> modify properties, then there is no way
> for me to
> > stop them for happening.
>
> In which situation would "<atributes> modify properties" have
> negative effects on what you are planing to do with
> <macrodef>? Do you have an enlightening example?
>
<macrodef name="myMacro">
<attribute name="debug"/>
<element name="code"/>
<sequential>
<if>
<istrue value="${debug}">
<then>
<echo>myMacro: Entering my macro</echo>
<code/>
<echo>myMacro: Entering my macro</echo>
</then>
<else>
<code/>
</else>
</if>
</sequential>
</macrodef>
So here we have this simple macro that adds some debug information.
So I use it like:
<myMacro debug="true">
<code>
<my.javac srcdir="test/src" .../>
</code>
</myMacro>
Still, very na�ve code. Until you see that the definition of my.java is:
<presetdef name="my.javac">
<javac srcdir="src" destdir="classes" deprecation="${deprecation}"
debug="${debug}"/>
</presetdef>
No here the intention of the code writer was to control javac using the
debug property. But just because I decided to write myMacro with an
attribute called debug, I am changing the behavior of my.java. (if we use
locals)
If this one is not convinsing enough, I am sure we can build one based on
this model.
If we were doing replacement, this will not happen. The attribute "debug"
will only affect the <if> and not the things inside <code/>.
But wait, what if I actually wanted to change the property?
Well, in that case you can introduce the <local> yourself
as part of the code of the macro:
<macrodef name="myMacro">
<attribute name="debug"/>
<element name="code"/>
<sequential>
<local property="debug" value="$(debug)">
<if>
<istrue value="${debug}">
<then>
<echo>myMacro: Entering my macro</echo>
<code/>
<echo>myMacro: Entering my macro</echo>
</then>
<else>
<code/>
</else>
</if>
</local>
</sequential>
</macrodef>
Here, I guess I need diferent syntax so I can talk about the attribute
and the property at the same time.
So as I said, textual replacement is not only the one least surprising
but it is also the most flexible. You cannot do it the other way around.
Jose Alberto
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
