> I like both of them. However, I have some issues with the "force" > attribute. > > I would think the purpose of "force" would be to ensure that for a > one-time build everything got built. That is, it wouldn't normally be > used. I might use it if I thought that my objects were out > of date, or > if something that isn't depended on is out of date. If > that's the usage > scenario, then this "force" option would be better off as a > command line > parameter instead of an attribute. If it really was an attribute, I'd > either have to always have it present in the build file and have it > conditionally turned on (ugly), or I'd have to edit the build > file when > I occasionally wanted to use it (even uglier). > > Or am I missing the typical usage of your proposal?
No, your not missing anything. I think I've embarssed myself again by sending out a proposal without totally thinking it through. I think the usage you want is somehting like: nant -D:force=true build This would need to set something (a property called nant.force?) that tasks should look at? Ugg... I see you what you mean. It's getting a bit ugly. Lets put that on the back burner until a good solution comes along. The message attribute is the more interesting of the two anyways. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0003en _______________________________________________ Nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
