You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ant.apache.org by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> on 2010/04/23 11:29:16 UTC
[POLL] Bug 48804
Hi all,
currently extension-point and import don't play together like they are
supposed to. You can't extend an imported extension point with a target
from the importing build file (which is the primary use-case, really).
Attached to this bug is a patch that fixes the problem (including an
AntUnit test that fails in 1.8.0).
The same patch breaks a different AntUnit test, namely
testExtensionPointMustBeKnown in extension-point-test.xml. This test
asserts that you can't extend an extension point from the same build
file before that extension point has been defined. I.e. you can't do
<target name="bar" extensionOf="foo"/>
<extension-point name="foo"/>
Personally I think the changed behavior isn't a bad thing, the old
behavior isn't documented and we shouldn't even try to keep it.
What do you think?
Stefan
PS: I'd love to see this fixed with Ant 1.8.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Bug 48804
Posted by Antoine Levy Lambert <an...@gmx.de>.
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2010-04-23, Martijn Kruithof <jk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>> I agree, however it may be good to update the 1.8.0 manual with a
>> warning that the behavior is currently not as intended and will
>> change, published as soon as the solution is changed.
>>
>
> The manual is a tagged svn revisio.
>
> Given that Antoine intends to release 1.8.1 pretty soon it may be enough
> to add an entry to the "doesn't work" section of the FAQ. I'll do so as
> soon as I commit the patch (I'll give the poll another day or two).
>
> Stefan
>
>
Yes, I am still thinking of 1.8.1. I have had a lot of work in my day
job but I think this week will be better.
Regards,
Antoine
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Bug 48804
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2010-04-23, Martijn Kruithof <jk...@apache.org> wrote:
> I agree, however it may be good to update the 1.8.0 manual with a
> warning that the behavior is currently not as intended and will
> change, published as soon as the solution is changed.
The manual is a tagged svn revisio.
Given that Antoine intends to release 1.8.1 pretty soon it may be enough
to add an entry to the "doesn't work" section of the FAQ. I'll do so as
soon as I commit the patch (I'll give the poll another day or two).
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Bug 48804
Posted by Martijn Kruithof <jk...@apache.org>.
I agree, however it may be good to update the 1.8.0 manual with a
warning that the behavior is currently not as intended and will change,
published as soon as the solution is changed.
br martijn
>
> On 23/04/2010 2:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> currently extension-point and import don't play together like they are
>> supposed to. You can't extend an imported extension point with a target
>> from the importing build file (which is the primary use-case, really).
>>
>> Attached to this bug is a patch that fixes the problem (including an
>> AntUnit test that fails in 1.8.0).
>>
>> The same patch breaks a different AntUnit test, namely
>> testExtensionPointMustBeKnown in extension-point-test.xml. This test
>> asserts that you can't extend an extension point from the same build
>> file before that extension point has been defined. I.e. you can't do
>>
>> <target name="bar" extensionOf="foo"/>
>> <extension-point name="foo"/>
>>
>> Personally I think the changed behavior isn't a bad thing, the old
>> behavior isn't documented and we shouldn't even try to keep it.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>> PS: I'd love to see this fixed with Ant 1.8.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Bug 48804
Posted by Bruce Atherton <br...@callenish.com>.
I think that since the code doesn't address the primary usecase, that
trumps pretty-well all considerations. It is hard to imagine how
someone would be relying on the order of the extension point/extension
evaluation in order to avoid the extension point. Since the behaviour
isn't documented anyway, doing so would have to be considered a hack.
I'd say make it do what it is supposed to do. If it passes gump, then we
can wait to see if any bug reports show up. If they do, we can deal with
those on a case-by-case basis, perhaps arriving at a wholly different
solution for them. Personally, I don't think any will show up.
On 23/04/2010 2:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> currently extension-point and import don't play together like they are
> supposed to. You can't extend an imported extension point with a target
> from the importing build file (which is the primary use-case, really).
>
> Attached to this bug is a patch that fixes the problem (including an
> AntUnit test that fails in 1.8.0).
>
> The same patch breaks a different AntUnit test, namely
> testExtensionPointMustBeKnown in extension-point-test.xml. This test
> asserts that you can't extend an extension point from the same build
> file before that extension point has been defined. I.e. you can't do
>
> <target name="bar" extensionOf="foo"/>
> <extension-point name="foo"/>
>
> Personally I think the changed behavior isn't a bad thing, the old
> behavior isn't documented and we shouldn't even try to keep it.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Stefan
>
> PS: I'd love to see this fixed with Ant 1.8.1.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Bug 48804
Posted by Antoine Levy Lambert <an...@gmx.de>.
Dominique Devienne wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> [...] You can't extend an imported extension point with a target
>> from the importing build file (which is the primary use-case, really).
>>
>
> Right.
>
>
>> [...] Personally I think the changed behavior isn't a bad thing, the old
>> behavior isn't documented and we shouldn't even try to keep it.
>>
>
> I agree. Fixing the primary use-case trumps this particular behavior.
> If we can't fix the bug without allow this "ahead-of-time" use of the
> extension point, it's no big deal to me. --DD
>
>
Agreed too,
Antoine
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Bug 48804
Posted by Peter Reilly <pe...@gmail.com>.
+1 for fixing
Peter
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2010-04-23, Dominique Devienne <dd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>> [...] Personally I think the changed behavior isn't a bad thing, the old
>>> behavior isn't documented and we shouldn't even try to keep it.
>
>> I agree. Fixing the primary use-case trumps this particular behavior.
>> If we can't fix the bug without allow this "ahead-of-time" use of the
>> extension point, it's no big deal to me.
>
> Technically we could also disallow it, but it would take some additional
> effort that I'm not sure is worth it, that's why I started this poll.
>
> Thanks
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Bug 48804
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2010-04-23, Dominique Devienne <dd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>> [...] Personally I think the changed behavior isn't a bad thing, the old
>> behavior isn't documented and we shouldn't even try to keep it.
> I agree. Fixing the primary use-case trumps this particular behavior.
> If we can't fix the bug without allow this "ahead-of-time" use of the
> extension point, it's no big deal to me.
Technically we could also disallow it, but it would take some additional
effort that I'm not sure is worth it, that's why I started this poll.
Thanks
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Bug 48804
Posted by Dominique Devienne <dd...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> [...] You can't extend an imported extension point with a target
> from the importing build file (which is the primary use-case, really).
Right.
> [...] Personally I think the changed behavior isn't a bad thing, the old
> behavior isn't documented and we shouldn't even try to keep it.
I agree. Fixing the primary use-case trumps this particular behavior.
If we can't fix the bug without allow this "ahead-of-time" use of the
extension point, it's no big deal to me. --DD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Bug 48804
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 23, 2010, at 4:29 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> currently extension-point and import don't play together like they are
> supposed to. You can't extend an imported extension point with a
> target
> from the importing build file (which is the primary use-case, really).
>
> Attached to this bug is a patch that fixes the problem (including an
> AntUnit test that fails in 1.8.0).
>
> The same patch breaks a different AntUnit test, namely
> testExtensionPointMustBeKnown in extension-point-test.xml. This test
> asserts that you can't extend an extension point from the same build
> file before that extension point has been defined. I.e. you can't do
>
> <target name="bar" extensionOf="foo"/>
> <extension-point name="foo"/>
>
> Personally I think the changed behavior isn't a bad thing, the old
> behavior isn't documented and we shouldn't even try to keep it.
>
> What do you think?
>
I don't see any harm in allowing an extensionOf foo to be declared in
the same buildfile as extension-point foo. In contrast, I have been
frustrated by the primary issue from the referenced bugrep. Which
all translates to my being in general agreement with your opinion.
-Matt
> Stefan
>
> PS: I'd love to see this fixed with Ant 1.8.1.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org