Generic vs non-generic?

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

Hi,

I was wondering on which was thought to be more useful.

<typedef name="javac" type="task" classname="org.apache.ant.Javac">

vs

<taskdef name="javac" classname="org.apache.ant.Javac">

The first part is more powerful and seems to be the trend that all features
of ant move towards (ie see Copy* --> Copy). The second is nicer for less
technical sophisticated audience but could lead to a whole bunch of tasks
(aspectdef/listenerdef/datadef/taskdef/mapperdef/etc).

They same issue comes up import style statements 

<import library="jdk.tsk" name="javac" type="task"/>

vs

<import-task library="jdk.tsk" name="javac"/>


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               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*

Re: Generic vs non-generic?

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

Peter Donald <do...@apache.org> wrote:

> I was wondering on which was thought to be more useful.
> 
> <typedef name="javac" type="task" classname="org.apache.ant.Javac">
> 
> vs
> 
> <taskdef name="javac" classname="org.apache.ant.Javac">

Making up some preference syntax here

<typedef name="taskdef" type="task" 
         classname="org.apache.ant.core.Typedef" />
<pref name="taskdef">
  <attribute name="type" default="task" />
</pref>

which means, one could make <taskdef> a specialized version of
<typedef> quite easily.  I'd go for the first version.

Stefan