Re: [nant-dev] property overwrite attrib
>From: "Jamie Briant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 12:49 AM > The first is dangerous because when a programmer decides to change some > build.config's to build.local.config (for example) they are guaranteed > at some point to miss one. Not every time. Not even very often. Just > often enough for the failure to be costly. I'm not sure how this could happen with an automated replace and a proper review, and I hope that no one would make this sort of edit manually. But you could just as easily have typos elsewhere that are just as fatal; as I said recently, the task still isn't implemented. >If the word "overwrite" is confusing, may I suggest a new option be put > in its place that has the same effect, such as "overwriteexisting", or > "lookmeupinthemanual". If you're going to do that, you may as well make it "ICouldNotForTheLifeOfMeFigureOutAWayToMakeThisUsableSoIPutInThisUnusa bleNameInstead" :-) A while back, I suggested that the "default" pattern occurs often enough to be put into the property mechanism. Something like either , which would have the same effect as the other two, or even something like , again with the same effect. This is the wrong time to put this back on the table, but it's certainly reasonable enough to consider in the future. Gary --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc. Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl ___ nant-developers mailing list nant-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
Re: [nant-dev] property overwrite attrib
Hi Jamie, We listen to our "customers", so we've decided to no longer mark that attribute as deprecated. Gert - Original Message - From: "Jamie Briant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 2:56 AM Subject: [nant-dev] property overwrite attrib Does this not seem outstandingly dangerous to anyone? Its just asking for errors where only one of the "build.config"'s is changed. Is there a good reason that the following is deprecated? --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc. Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl ___ nant-developers mailing list nant-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
RE: [nant-dev] property overwrite attrib
The first is dangerous because when a programmer decides to change some
build.config's to build.local.config (for example) they are guaranteed
at some point to miss one. Not every time. Not even very often. Just
often enough for the failure to be costly.
If there's one place that I expect a maximum amount of robustness it's
in my build scripts. FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) would
tell you that the "overwrite" option will remove this cause of failures,
and that the failures may not be that easy to track down.
If the word "overwrite" is confusing, may I suggest a new option be put
in its place that has the same effect, such as "overwriteexisting", or
"lookmeupinthemanual".
Jamie
-Original Message-
From: Troy Laurin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 9:33 PM
To: Jamie Briant
Cc: nant-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] property overwrite attrib
Jamie Briant wrote:
> Does this not seem outstandingly dangerous to anyone?
>
>
>
> unless="${property::exists('build.config')}" />
>
>
>
> Its just asking for errors where only one of the "build.config"'s is
> changed. Is there a good reason that the following is deprecated?
>
>
>
> overwrite="false" />
>
James,
I'm not sure why the first would be dangerous but the second not... they
are functionally identical!
That's actually why the 'overwrite' attribute has been deprecated... it
is a widely misunderstood property, and the unless test is considered
much more explicit in its intent. That is, set this property unless
it's already set. A default value, if you will.
Regards,
-- Troy
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting
Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time
by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc.
Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl
___
nant-developers mailing list
nant-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
Re: [nant-dev] property overwrite attrib
Jamie Briant wrote: Does this not seem outstandingly dangerous to anyone? Its just asking for errors where only one of the “build.config”’s is changed. Is there a good reason that the following is deprecated? James, I'm not sure why the first would be dangerous but the second not... they are functionally identical! That's actually why the 'overwrite' attribute has been deprecated... it is a widely misunderstood property, and the unless test is considered much more explicit in its intent. That is, set this property unless it's already set. A default value, if you will. Regards, -- Troy --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc. Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl ___ nant-developers mailing list nant-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
[nant-dev] property overwrite attrib
Does this not seem outstandingly dangerous to anyone?Its just asking for errors where only one of the “build.config”’s is changed. Is there a good reason that the following is deprecated?
