New tasks for 1.4?

[Diane Holt <ho...@yahoo.com>]

A couple of weeks ago, the question of being able to set a property based
on derefencing another property came up again. There's also a bug filed
about it (#1733), and a patch was attached to it that allows for this
functionality. I picked that up and tried it -- see:
  http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ant-user&m=99383728324770&w=2
Think we should make it an optional task?

Also, awhile back someone wanted to be able to require a particular
version of Ant, so I wrote a little <require> task. I don't know how much
use it'd get, but if you think it's worth committing, I can put a doc
together for it and put it through.

And finally -- what should we do about the <foreach> task? Given how many
times over the past couple of months people have been pointed to picking
it up from the archives, should we go ahead and make it an optional task?
(Or would PeterD become apopletic at the very idea? :)

Diane

=====
(holtdl@yahoo.com)



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Re: New tasks for 1.4?

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Diane Holt <ho...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> What do you recommend if you only need a "blah" defined, and you
> need to define it for bligga, blooga, blinga, blonga, bloopa,
> blorpa, blooma, blomba, and blorq? -- an individual file, defining
> that one property, for each one?

Rethinking your build system 8-)

Using something like ${the_selector}.blah everywhere instead of
assigning a value to a property named blah would be an options for
example.

> I guess I'm just still not clear on what the objections are to
> offering functionality like this as optional tasks.

Because one doesn't need that feature at all (unless you can prove me
wrong) and I don't think that Ant should have optional tasks just to
add "more than one way to do it".

Stefan

Re: New tasks for 1.4?

[Diane Holt <ho...@yahoo.com>]

--- Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> The problem by the bug report can be solved with two property files:
> 
> bligga.properties
> =================
> blah=foo
> bleen=foo2
> 
> blooga.properties
> =================
> blah=bar
> bleen=bar2

What do you recommend if you only need a "blah" defined, and you need to
define it for bligga, blooga, blinga, blonga, bloopa, blorpa, blooma,
blomba, and blorq? -- an individual file, defining that one property, for
each one?  Wouldn't it be nicer to be able to just have a blah.properties
file, where all the "blah"s are defined?

I guess I'm just still not clear on what the objections are to offering
functionality like this as optional tasks.

Diane

=====
(holtdl@yahoo.com)



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Re: New tasks for 1.4?

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Nico Seessle <ni...@apache.org> wrote:

> From: "Stefan Bodewig" <bo...@apache.org>
> 
>> I'd go with Nico's solution (on the report) or use external
>> property
> 
> But that solution will not work with external property-files because
> you can't assign an id to properties read from the property-file

That's why I said _or_ 8-)

The problem by the bug report can be solved with two property files:

bligga.properties
=================
blah=foo
bleen=foo2

blooga.properties
=================
blah=bar
bleen=bar2

and

<property file="${the_selector}.properties" />

I'll add that to the bug report.

Stefan

Re: New tasks for 1.4?

[Nico Seessle <ni...@apache.org>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Bodewig" <bo...@apache.org>
To: <an...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: New tasks for 1.4?


> I'd go with Nico's solution (on the report) or use external property

But that solution will not work with external property-files because you
can't assign an id to properties read from the property-file

> files to solve this (my standard answer, I know 8-) - I still couldn't
> get convinced that we need recursive property resolution.

And http://jakarta.apache.org/ant/ant2/requested-features.html currently
lists this feature under "VI. Things that were submitted late" -
"Rejected" - I read that as "we could implement this for 1.4, but it will
not be in 2.0 anyway" - makes no sense to me...

Nico

Re: New tasks for 1.4?

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

I realize discussion will be a bit of a problem with mail delays of
more than an hour (at least for me ATM) ...

On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Diane Holt <ho...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> A couple of weeks ago, the question of being able to set a property
> based on derefencing another property came up again.

-0

I'd go with Nico's solution (on the report) or use external property
files to solve this (my standard answer, I know 8-) - I still couldn't
get convinced that we need recursive property resolution.

> Also, awhile back someone wanted to be able to require a particular
> version of Ant, so I wrote a little <require> task.

-0

You'll probably not just set a property but also make the build fail,
right?  This means we'd have two different types of <fail> tasks, in a
sense this is not that different from adding a the fail functionality
to available (which has been vetoed).

A cleaner solution would be to (1) create the condition task - not
that big a problem IMHO, (2) implement your require task as a
condition in this task, and optionally (3) add if/unless attributes to
fail.

> And finally -- what should we do about the <foreach> task?

Has been vetoed by many people - even though I'd not veto it any
longer, others will probably stick to their vote.  Count that as a +0.

Stefan

Re: New tasks for 1.4?

[Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 01:42, Diane Holt wrote:
> A couple of weeks ago, the question of being able to set a property based
> on derefencing another property came up again. There's also a bug filed
> about it (#1733), and a patch was attached to it that allows for this
> functionality. I picked that up and tried it -- see:
>   http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ant-user&m=99383728324770&w=2
> Think we should make it an optional task?

nope. It is functioality that will be obsolete in Ant2.

> And finally -- what should we do about the <foreach> task? Given how many
> times over the past couple of months people have been pointed to picking
> it up from the archives, should we go ahead and make it an optional task?
> (Or would PeterD become apopletic at the very idea? :)

Naah he'll just -1 for reasons already stated.

Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*