But wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of the <fill in role-type here> I thought the whole point was avoiding having addConcrete in favour of having add(Role).
What basically is that what Matt just stated.
Apart from the variands A and B further below, would the following also work?
<project name="foo" default="bar">
<resourcecollection id="blah" xmlns="ant:set">
<and>
<files dir="foo" name="**/*.java"/>
<date select="newer" date="2005/04/15"/>
</and>
</resourcecollection></project>
or would this mean that the resoursecollection must be part of set itself?
===A=== <project name="foo" default="bar" xmlns:co="ant:condition" xmlns:set="ant:set">
<resourcecollection id="blah">
<set:and>
<set:files dir="foo" name="**/*.java"/>
<set:date select="newer" date="2005/04/15"/>
</set:and>
</resourcecollection></project>
===B===
<and xmlns="ant:conditions" />
<and xmlns="ant:fileselectors" />
<and xmlns="ant:resourceselectors" />
<date xmlns="ant:resourceselectors" />
<date xmlns="ant:resourcecomparators" />
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
