On 18 Nov 2003, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Vote: >> [X] local for ant 1.6 >> [ ] wait for ant 1.7 > > and done right ;-)
Things we need to consider IMHO: (1) Syntax Your proposal uses a <local> task that sets up a local scope for a named property until the enclosing target/sequential finishes. Jose Alberto suggested to use a <local> TaskContainer instead, something like <local> <local-property name="...."/> </local> which would essentially just add an explicit (and differently named) <seqential> to your proposal. I think I prefer the more explicit, even if more verbose syntax of the second form. (2) Shadowing of properties Your updated proposal ensures that local properties do not override "global" user properties. I think they shouldn't be allowed to override any outer scope properties at all. (3) Extent of local properties You make the local properties available to <script> - will they also be available for builds that get called with the <ant> family of tasks (assuming inheritall is true)? I think they should be. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
