+1 from me so far...
I really like the idea of filesets. �It neatly encapsulates the idea of a
collection of files, and makes use of the "includes, excludes" syntax we
are all familiar with. �Having more than one fileset creates a union of
files, which is totaly logical. �However, why have an attribute name of
"includes" and an entity name of "include"? �Same for excludes/exclude.
What about the attribute name "files" instead of "name" for the include and
exclude elements? �Strikes me as being a little more readable.
All of the copy/move/delete tasks specify the subelements include and
exclude, but aren't included in the DTDs. �If you intended to include them
(and I can't see why not), why use the indiviual elements and not use
fileset elements? �I can understand not using fileset for unjar and unzip
(what would the dir attribute be), but it makes sense to me to use it with
c/m/d. �Hmm... then again, it might be more overhead than is strictly
required. �Me, I vote for consistency, but clarity is probably a higher
priority with these core tasks.
Glenn McAllister
TID - Software Developer - VisualAge for Java
IBM Toronto Lab, (416) 448-3805
"An approximate answer to the right question is better than the
right answer to the wrong question." - John W. Tukey
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: � � � [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: � � � �Core Task spec 0.1
Hi,
I finally managed to get some work done on the specification of the core
tasks (Holidays, JavaOne and a new employer (with a name that resembles
that big bright yellow thingy in the sky;-) kept me from doing so).
It's a rough draft and a bunch of tasks is not filled in yet, but it can at
least be used as a starting point for discussions on the core tasks. The
spec is largely based on discussions held in the past on the ant-dev list.
Due to the drafty nature, I did not commit it to CVS yet. It can be found
at http://home.planet.nl/~ajkuiper/taskspec.html. The spec assumes that you
are familiar with the pattern matching based on includes/excludes (see the
Ant manual).
Comments please...
Cheers,
� �Arnout
