Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't see though what feature can be attained from "relying" on
the XmlProperty failing for file not existing. Can you please post
a use-case to compare with mine?
Hey, I didn't say your use-case was inval
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see though what feature can be attained from "relying" on
> the XmlProperty failing for file not existing. Can you please post
> a use-case to compare with mine?
Hey, I didn't say your use-case was invalid, quite the op
I think letting gracefully not fail if the file is
missing is more appropriate since it should operate like .
I think the Gump litmus test is a reasonable enough way to judge how
much of an impact our changes might have on others when it comes to
backwards compatibility. Its not a complete te
Conor MacNeill wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Ok.
I don't see though what feature can be attained from "relying" on the
XmlProperty failing for file not existing. Can you please post a
use-case to compare with mine?
Nicola Ken,
Backward compatability isn't about what is sensible or what should
Conor MacNeill wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Ok.
I don't see though what feature can be attained from "relying" on the
XmlProperty failing for file not existing. Can you please post a
use-case to compare with mine?
Nicola Ken,
Backward compatability isn't about what is sensible or what should
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Ok.
I don't see though what feature can be attained from "relying" on the
XmlProperty failing for file not existing. Can you please post a
use-case to compare with mine?
Nicola Ken,
Backward compatability isn't about what is sensible or what should be.
Someone, no mat
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually I think that it fixes a bug, rather than be a RFE, since it
aligns behaviour with the normal property task.
The same has been said about 's inheritall="false", but still
we've kept the "buggy" behavio
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually I think that it fixes a bug, rather than be a RFE, since it
> aligns behaviour with the normal property task.
The same has been said about 's inheritall="false", but still
we've kept the "buggy" behavior as the default.
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 9 Jan 2003, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Don't fail if the file doesn't exist in
This breaks backwards compatibility with 1.5, some people might rely
on the failure in the first place.
Should we add an attribute (like ignoremissingfile with false being
the default) to swit
On 9 Jan 2003, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't fail if the file doesn't exist in
This breaks backwards compatibility with 1.5, some people might rely
on the failure in the first place.
Should we add an attribute (like ignoremissingfile with false being
the default) to switch between 1.5 an
bodewig 2003/01/09 00:23:17
Modified:.WHATSNEW
src/main/org/apache/tools/ant/taskdefs XmlProperty.java
Log:
Don't fail if the file doesn't exist in
PR: 15674
Submitted by: Nicola Ken Barozzi
Revision ChangesPath
1.336 +2 -0 jakarta
stevel 2002/06/20 23:30:30
Modified:src/main/org/apache/tools/ant/taskdefs Tag: ANT_15_BRANCH
XmlProperty.java
Log:
more javadoc updates.
Added some @todos where it seemed appropriate.
Revision ChangesPath
No revision
ehatcher02/05/20 13:28:36
Modified:src/main/org/apache/tools/ant/types/selectors Tag:
ANT_15_BRANCH BaseExtendSelector.java
ExtendFileSelector.java FilenameSelector.java
src/main/org/apache/tools/ant/taskdefs/rmic Tag:
ehatcher02/04/21 17:05:09
Modified:docs/manual coretasklist.html credits.html
src/main/org/apache/tools/ant/taskdefs XmlProperty.java
Added: docs/manual/CoreTasks xmlproperty.html
Log:
patches provided by Nicola Ken Barrozi. documentation added. the "[]" and
i
14 matches
Mail list logo
