You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ant.apache.org by bu...@apache.org on 2002/07/02 13:49:53 UTC
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 10399] New: -
Merge and
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10399>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10399
Merge <waitfor> and <condition>
Summary: Merge <waitfor> and <condition>
Product: Ant
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Other
Status: NEW
Severity: Enhancement
Priority: Other
Component: Core tasks
AssignedTo: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
ReportedBy: wtff@freenet.de
Well, this is a minor issue, I admit, but for the sake of conceptional beauty,
I would vote for a merge of the conditions/tasks <waitfor> and <condition>.
Why not use <condition> and add the attributs from the <waitfor> task to it?
My reasoning for this:
- in a literal sense, a condition is s.th that one can wait for to become true
or false.
- the word condition is declarative, waitfor is imperative. The ant/xml
approach is a declarative approach, therefore <condition> fits better.
- I would not invent a separate task just to factor out timout issues from
the condition task.
- The waitfor task seems to subsum the condition task. Anything that I could do
with the condition task, i could also do with the waitfor task but not the
other way round. Therefore, one task would do.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>