Subject: RE: DispatchTask
From: Dominique Devienne <DDevienne () lgc ! com>
Date: 2004-06-04 15:14:02
> public static void dispatchAction(String action, Task target) { ... }
>
> or
>
> public static void dispatchAction(String action, Object target) { ... }
>
> to make it fully bean friendly.
>
> Then it's just the matter of writer
>
> execute() { TasktUtils.dispatchAction(_action, this); }
>
> And one can use any 'action' attribute one wants.
>
> When it can be avoided, I prefer to keep my single inheritance
> choices open. --DD
Nice idea. I was thinking of the following:
Option 1: Allow task writer to just extend DispatchTask
interface IDispatchTask {
public String getActionParameter();
}
abstract class DispatchTask extends Task implements IDispatchTask {
public String getActionParameter() {
return "action";
}
public void setAction(String action) {...}
public String getAction() {...}
public final void execute() throws BuildException {
//Nothing here - Ant's modified introspection would take care
//of executing the correct method
}
}
Option 2: Impelement IDispatchTask along similar lines of
DispatchTask and still have Ant work out the details of
which method to execute when.
Option 3: Let the user invoke the dispatcher manually
(your approach)
I'll try to implement it such that all these are possible...
The neat thing with option 1 is that the user does not have
to implement a dummy execute method to just dispatch stuff
out. But I do see your point of not wanting to extend if
avoidable.
Cheers,
Magesh
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
