You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ant.apache.org by Matt Benson <gu...@yahoo.com> on 2004/06/03 16:53:37 UTC

Generic tasks/types WAS Possible Ant 1.7 alpha bug: property expansion.

--- Matt Benson <gu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <taskdef name="myph" classname="my.PropertyHelper"
> />
> <myph id="ant.PropertyHelper" />

The above reminds me of something... for one thing,
that should have been a <typedef> in that context, but
anyway...

what would be the ramifications of having

<task classname="my.custom.Task">
...
</task>

and

<type id="setanidorwhatsthepoint" foo="bar" />

Et cetera?

-Matt


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


Re: Generic tasks/types WAS Possible Ant 1.7 alpha bug: property expansion.

Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Matt Benson <gu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If there is any reason why we couldn't/shouldn't have
> a generic <task> DynamicConfigurator that could
> execute an arbitrary task by classname, and a generic
> <type> or <object>, probably also a
> DynamicConfigurator, to instantiate (and optionally
> configure) an arbitrary object, usu. to set as a
> reference, but possibly for other things as well...

Ahh!!

No, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have a task/type like
this.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


Re: Generic tasks/types WAS Possible Ant 1.7 alpha bug: property expansion.

Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@yahoo.com>.
--- Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Matt Benson
> 
> Sorry, what is your question?
> 

If there is any reason why we couldn't/shouldn't have
a generic <task> DynamicConfigurator that could
execute an arbitrary task by classname, and a generic
<type> or <object>, probably also a
DynamicConfigurator, to instantiate (and optionally
configure) an arbitrary object, usu. to set as a
reference, but possibly for other things as well...

Kind of a shortcut to <taskdef>ing something you only
want to use once, or set dynamically...

-Matt



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


Re: Generic tasks/types WAS Possible Ant 1.7 alpha bug: property expansion.

Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Matt Benson <gu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Matt Benson <gu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <taskdef name="myph" classname="my.PropertyHelper"
>> />
>> <myph id="ant.PropertyHelper" />
> 
> The above reminds me of something... for one thing,
> that should have been a <typedef> in that context, but
> anyway...
> 
> what would be the ramifications of having
> 
> <task classname="my.custom.Task">
> ...
> </task>
> 
> and
> 
> <type id="setanidorwhatsthepoint" foo="bar" />
> 
> Et cetera?

Sorry, what is your question?

8-)

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org