- Original Message -
From: Scott Hernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Clayton Harbour [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Nant-Developers (E-Mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] fileset deprecations
+1 on co-existence, of include+includes, for a release
Gert Driesen wrote:
I was also thinking about a warnaserror switch, similar to what the MS
compilers have ... But I'm not sure that's a good idea, as every warning
that is logged would cause a build failure, and we currently even log errors
without causing a build failure ... Guess we'll have to
- Original Message -
From: Ian MacLean [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Gert Driesen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Scott Hernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Clayton Harbour
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nant-Developers (E-Mail)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] fileset deprecations
Gert Driesen wrote:
Not for extra attributes/elements, no ...
Another option is to have a
dedicated switch -strict or -failoninvalidelements ( horrifically long
) that will fail only on invalid structure warnings - ie
elements/attributes that aren't valid.
Maybe yes, but I think we could
Gert Driesen wrote:
We could just not do strict checking for any Task/Element that overrides
the InitializeTask method.
A lot of tasks (I think) override InitializeTask to just perform checks ...
Ok then. How about other attributes that would go on classes that have
customised checking.
- Original Message -
From: Ian MacLean [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Gert Driesen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Scott Hernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Clayton Harbour
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nant-Developers (E-Mail)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] fileset deprecations
- Original Message -
From: Ian MacLean [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Gert Driesen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Scott Hernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Clayton Harbour
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nant-Developers (E-Mail)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] fileset deprecations
Gert Driesen wrote:
A lot of tasks (I think) override InitializeTask to just perform checks
...
We could ofcourse add a virtual method called ValidateTask method
that tasks
should use for performing additional checks, that would be more
clear ...
I'm pretty sure that was the purpose
- Original Message -
From: Ian MacLean [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Gert Driesen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Scott Hernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Clayton Harbour
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nant-Developers (E-Mail)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] fileset deprecations
Hi,
What do you think about deprecating the following fileset elements :
includes
excludes
and replacing them by
include
exclude
and adding excludes and includes attributes on the fileset element (to allow
a list of patterns to be stored in a property).
Note: these deprecated elements would
Gert Driesen wrote:
Hi,
What do you think about deprecating the following fileset elements :
includes
excludes
and replacing them by
include
exclude
the naming is clearer I suppose but there is a certain amount of inertia
- there are a lot of build files out there wil the current naming.
and
Hi,
the naming is clearer I suppose but there is a certain amount of
inertia
- there are a lot of build files out there wil the current naming.
I know, that why I'm asking ... we'll see how others respond
... we could ofcourse have both of them coexist, and then
deprecate
+1 on co-existence, of include+includes, for a release or two, but totally
removal by 1.0.
As for the strict enforcement of only declared elements and properties for
tasks/types, I had done some work on that a long time ago. Take a look at
the Element.AttributeConfigurator.InitilizeElement() code
13 matches
Mail list logo
