On 5/10/07, Jarosław Wypychowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
+1 :-)
Xavier
--jw
--
Jaroslaw Wypychowski
Interdyscyplinarne Centrum Modelowania Matematycznego i Komputerowego UW
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
Manage your dependencies with Ivy!
http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/
