Dnia 10-05-2007, czw o godzinie 16:24 +0200, Xavier Hanin napisał(a): > On 5/10/07, Gilles Scokart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Personally I prefer the abstract doExecute and the final execute because > > it > > make it clear which code is executed before and after the task. I fear > > that > > an event handler registered to the project will not be so clear. > > > I agree it is more clear, but I was looking for some kind of life cycle > already handled by Ant, and found only these events. But maybe using our own > life cycle of execute makes more sense. > > Any other opinion? I think that You are talking about BuildListener. I don't like the idea of controlling the reference stack with generic listeners. First - do they control only subclasses of IvyTask ?
I would suggest that we make a different thing:
IvyTask{
final execute(){
try{
prepareTask();
doExecute();
} finally {
finalizeTask();
}
}
public void prepareTask(){
stackAdd
}
public void finalizeTask(){
stackRemove
}
}
Then it would be clear that if you want to take advantage of default Ivy
mechanisms you have to follow the 3 step task management.
As for top against peek - I didn't thought of Stack interface - feel
free to correct that. I can modify the sources according to the above
and change top into peek.
--jw
--
Jaroslaw Wypychowski
Interdyscyplinarne Centrum Modelowania Matematycznego i Komputerowego UW
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: To jest część listu podpisana cyfrowo
