On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Jose Alberto Fernandez
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[SNIP]
Agree in principle. As a matter of fact, we
already have the
PropertyHelper chain framework.
That's what I've
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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...
--- Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
--- Dominique Devienne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This actually ties back to what Magesh proposed (the
dispatch task).
One of the useful bit his proposal allowed was to
conditionally
execute one mode or the other thanks to
mode=${mode}, where
mode can be configured/computed before-hand. If
--- Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SNIP]
I don't see any easy way to defer the actual string
tokenization to
the individual PropertyHelpers of the chain, so we
may be better
served by defining a more useful algorithm at the
top.
One (slightly messy) solution might be to decouple
Your example has this assumption, quite thin for the general case
that no matter what accion, the set of other attributes and
elements must be exactly the same.
I really do not see to much of the usability gain in something like
that.
Usually you expect different input for different actions. And
--- Jose Alberto Fernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[SNIP]
But are there enough usages
as to grant the
definition of a full framework for this pattern.
That's backwards... the original idea was not a full
framework to support this pattern... this pattern is
only one possible way to exploit
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004, Antoine Lévy-Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In my opinion, the problem reported is a bug, even if for instance
JDK 1.4 regexp has a similar bug. I would go for fixing the bug
without BC, in order not to make the code too complicated.
Where fixing the bug would expand
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004, Jack J. Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay. I'm going to add one class ..ant.util.RecursivePropertyParser
and call it from ..ant.PropertyHelper.replacePropertiesRecursively()
I'd rather make that a completely new PropertyHelper that can be
selected on the command line as
From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Okay. I'm going to add one class ..ant.util.RecursivePropertyParser
and call it from ..ant.PropertyHelper.replacePropertiesRecursively()
I'd rather make that a completely new PropertyHelper that can
be selected on the command line as an
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Jose Alberto Fernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Okay. I'm going to add one class
..ant.util.RecursivePropertyParser and call it from
..ant.PropertyHelper.replacePropertiesRecursively()
I'd rather make that a completely
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004, Peter Reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not think that this is a bug.
I'm not convinced either. I'd only want to reinstate 1.6.x's behavior
if it really had changed in CVS HEAD (which I doubt, BTW). It
probably has always (since 1.4 or so) worked the way it does now
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004, Peter Reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not think that this is a bug.
I'm not convinced either. I'd only want to reinstate 1.6.x's behavior
if it really had changed in CVS HEAD (which I doubt, BTW).
Ah, I see.
Just tested with ant 1.5.4 and
--- Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Jose Alberto Fernandez
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[SNIP]
Agree in principle. As a matter of fact, we
already have the
PropertyHelper chain framework.
That's what I've been talking about, yes 8-)
Nice... however, since
--- Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Matt Benson wrote:
We could create a new property
ant.PropertyHelper.classname or some such, to allow
users a comfortable way to avoid the situation above,
but AFAICT the issue still exists.
Well, some of what you are talking about is a little deeper in Ant-fu than I
care to go for this
From: Jack J. Woehr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matt Benson wrote:
We could create a new property
ant.PropertyHelper.classname or some such, to allow
users a comfortable way to avoid the situation above,
but AFAICT the issue still exists.
Well, some of what you are talking about is
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
From: Jack J. Woehr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, it seem to me the problem is deeper.
You're correct ... I've got recursive expansion kinda working already, just
fixing a bug now but have to put it aside to do some real work :-)
So what needs to be change
--- Jose Alberto Fernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[SNIP]
I guess, the way to do it properly is to use
something like the way
java.text.Format
works. You find the beginning of a property
reference and the
PropertyHelper chain is the one that tells you where
is the end pf the
property
and
From: Matt Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think you're basically right. And I remember having
wondered why java.text.Format was implemented that
way; now I know...
Such strategy would allow writing property
evaluators that contain real
complex expressions inside. Which we
I was just adding to the Ant Wiki AntOddities page the following macrodef :
!-- Allows you define a new property with a value of ${${a}.${b}} which
can't be done by the Property task alone. --
macrodef name=macro.compose-property
attribute name=name/
From: Jack J. Woehr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I wrote a quick counter-example which shows how expansions of properties
in Ant is not recursive:
?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8?
project basedir=. default=all name=changeme
target name=all
property name=a
Dominique Devienne wrote:
I believe that ${${a}.${b}} is parsed as:
getProperty(${a) + . + getProperty(b) + }, thus the result. --DD
Well, it sure looks like it is :-)
But is that result reasonable? It looks more to me like an artifact of a coding
strategy
being elevated to a principle.
--
From: Jack J. Woehr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dominique Devienne wrote:
I believe that ${${a}.${b}} is parsed as:
getProperty(${a) + . + getProperty(b) + }, thus the result. --DD
Well, it sure looks like it is :-)
But is that result reasonable? It looks more to me like an
Dominique Devienne wrote:
From: Jack J. Woehr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dominique Devienne wrote:
I believe that ${${a}.${b}} is parsed as:
getProperty(${a) + . + getProperty(b) + }, thus the result. --DD
Well, it sure looks like it is :-)
But is that result reasonable?
From: Jack J. Woehr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Second, what's one to do? Ant by contract does not support nested
properties, so what's Ant to do when it sees on opening ${?
Glad you ask.
Ant should behave analagously to m4: recursively expand until it
either hits ground or an
From: Jack J. Woehr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ant should behave analagously to m4: recursively expand until it
either hits ground or an uninstantiated ${decorated} name.
Oh, and the algorithm should be something like:
1. While argument X contains any ${} expressions {
Dominique Devienne wrote:
From: Jack J. Woehr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ant should behave analagously to m4: recursively expand until it
either hits ground or an uninstantiated ${decorated} name.
Oh, and the algorithm should be something like:
1. While argument X
From: Jack J. Woehr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But you side stepped the BC issue.
?? Not sure I get you. BC issue?
Backward-compatibility issue. --DD
You can always implement (and test) the
algorithm above, and see if you can get the committers to put it in. --
DD
Sure, but save me
From: Jack J. Woehr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Okay, Alexey wrote:
Just add something like if (project.getProperty(ant.bc)!=null)
...
to make them happier.
Was he speaking abstractly or is there an ant.bc property really?
Can't know for sure, but Alexey might have been
Dominique Devienne wrote:
There's no such property, and any new 'magic' property will be a struggle to
get past IMHO. Committers would have to chime in at this point... --DD
It can be a command-line option or a property option. Looks like I can just
implement
In my opinion, the problem reported is a bug, even if for instance JDK
1.4 regexp has a similar bug.
I would go for fixing the bug without BC, in order not to make the code
too complicated.
This is just me though.
Cheers,
Antoine
Jack J. Woehr wrote:
Dominique Devienne wrote:
There's no such
From: Antoine Lévy-Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In my opinion, the problem reported is a bug, even if for instance JDK
1.4 regexp has a similar bug.
The JDK regex stuff is a tangent. It's just my own code to do Ant-like
property substitution (or Shell like, or DOS like, as it's
Dominique Devienne wrote:
Cool. Then people wouldn't need ac:propertycopy and/or the macrodef
trick, or the propertyfile trick. Lets see what other committers think.
Should this lowly non-committer play with code or await some kind of consensus
on design?
--
Jack J. Woehr # We have gone
Dominique Devienne wrote:
Code has momentum. Design talk does not. Plat at will. --DD
Okay. I'm going to add one class ..ant.util.RecursivePropertyParser and call it
from ..ant.PropertyHelper.replacePropertiesRecursively()
and add some switch between that method and
Dominique Devienne wrote:
It does to me. Just throw in a test case too. --DD
Okay. Thanks.
--
Jack J. Woehr # We have gone from the horse and buggy
Senior Consultant # to the moon rocket in one lifetime, but
Purematrix, Inc. # there has not been a corresponding moral
www.purematrix.com
38 matches
Mail list logo
