On 2013-12-10, at 0:18, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2013-12-09, Andre-John Mas wrote: > >> It is what I used and how the patch was accepted, but since I was told >> it wasn't ideal I wanted to see if there were ways to deal with this >> going forward. > > It was me who said it wasn't ideal. My concern is IDE integration which > might start Ant differently and bypass Main so the static methods on > Main don't work properly. > > Andre-John's contribution made me look at the implementation again and > since the methods are static and only rely on ther version.txt file > being present, I no longer see a problem. An implementation outside of > Main wouldn't look any different and I highly doubt an IDE integration > would remove the Main class completely. > > Stefan Thanks for the insight. At the same time your original comment got me thinking about class dependencies on whether it would make better architectural sense to have a class that represents the application's environment, to avoid any potential two way dependencies with Main? Andre-John --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
