RE: Properties and the tag

[Peter Vogel <pv...@arsin.com>]

I'm in complete agreement Whitney and Jose!

-Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:j_a_fernandez@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 1:41 PM
> To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Properties and the <ant> tag
> 
> 
> > From: Whitney Hunter
> >
> > Is it just me or does anyone else think that it is bad that
> > when the <ant>
> > tag is used to execute a sub-build, the properties defined in
> > the enclosing
> > build file override the properties defined in an enclosed 
> build file?
> >
> 
> It is not just you. I feel the same way. As long as having 
> the property
> defined
> within the <ant*> takes precedence from the declaration in 
> the build file.
> 
> > The semantics that I expected (and I think is best) is for
> > the properties of
> > enclosing file to be available in the enclosed unless they
> > are defined in
> > the enclosed file. If a property is redefined in an enclosed
> > file, it should
> > override the enclosing file. If you want to override an
> > enclosed property
> > from the enclosing file, then use the embedded property
> > syntax for <ant>.
> > This is way that environment variables work in various unix shells.
> >
> > Comments?
> 
> I have mentioned it before. The current semantics makes 
> absolute non-sense
> since it assumes that every property in every biuldfile being 
> build has the
> same meaning. So if I use ${thefiles} a one file, this name 
> cannot be used
> in any other enclosed or calling file, unless they have 
> exacltly the same
> meaning. Which is the same as having just one global name 
> space that one
> need to administer between all build files you ever try to add to your
> build.
> 
> Unmanageable, indeed.
> 
> Jose Alberto
>