> -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > At 01:42 17/12/00 -0500, Jay Glanville wrote: > >Lets not forget one of our goals - to reduce/eliminate our > dependence on > magic > >variables. If we can get to the point where we can say that > Ant doesn't use > >magic variables, then we can make the statement that, logically (not > >functionally), parameters do not have global scope. I.e.: > if the tasks > don't > >use parameters directly (they only get their information for their > attributes or > >nested attributes) then parameters only have logical scope within the > build.xml > >file. This would be analogous to a method variable (in the > procedural > world) or > >an instance variable within a class. > > Design is fine - I encourage at all times - as long as it does not > compromise usability which I think a compielr switch does. If > you can thing > of a good pure way of retaining current ease of use then > bonza - otherwise > I would prefer the ugly but usable hacks ;)
Did I mention in my patch that my changes with respect to the "compiler" attribute was backwards compatible? I.e.: if a build.compiler property was defined, that the CompilerAdapterFactory would use it to determine which compiler adapter to produce. But if a "compiler" attribute was defined, it would over-ride the build.compiler property. Oh, yes. I forgot to mention that if the user puts a classname in the build.compiler property, that the factory would recognize this and would instantiate it for the javac task. Just me trying my best to sell my patch. ;-) I would really like to see this patch accepted as my department needs the includeJavaRuntime and includeAntRuntime attributes, and I don't want to maintain an offshoot of the ant project for my own purposes. Jay PS: Peter, in a previous post (your first one on this thread I think) you mentioned that I should be patient, as you didn't have the time right-away to merge this patch into the code base. What timeframe do you think you might be looking at? Just curious.
