On Tuesday 18 November 2003 15:32, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > 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 ;-)
Ouch ;-) > > 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. I think that this looks clumsy. Making local's valid for the current block scope (target level, or sequential level) feels (to me) more natural. However, I can see benefits ;- my code may not catch all uses of sequential. (note as well that local-property is not a valid name, localproperty would be correct). > (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. I think that this will reduce their usefullness a lot. The idea of not overridding user properties comes from the <ant> family behaviour, but they can overriden other properties. > > (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. Yes this is implemented. Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
