I see the point of merging the concepts of filtering tokens and
properties into one. But I think that having an all or nothing
approach is a very bad idea.
I may be more confortable with explicit demarcation of those properties
availables as filters:
<property name="version" value="1.1" filter="yes"/>
this will make the property also function as a filter.
By the same token <filter> taks would be just a shortcut for the above:
<filter name="version" value="1.1"/>
which means <filter> is not really a task, the same way as for <property>.
Jose Alberto
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John H. Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 3:41 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] SQLExec NullPointerException plus Filtering
>
>
>
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> > >>>>> "JHL" == John H Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > JHL> allows filtering of <sql> input file.
> >
> > Filtering has been reserved for "copying" tasks so far, I'm not sure
> > if we should spread this to other tasks as well.
> >
> > An alternative could be to do ${} expansions on the statements.
> >
> > What do others think?
>
> I'd like to see closer integration of filtering and properties (ie ${}
> expansions). I think forcing filters to be defined as properties will
> keep buildfiles clean. Currently, it is possible to define a
> filter and
> a property with the same name, but different values. This can cause
> confusion when writing and maintaining buildfiles, files to
> be filtered,
> and property files.
>
> An earlier patch I posted made all properties available as
> filters. As
> you pointed out, Stefan, this is potentially *very* dangerous. I have
> since added a "propertyFilters" boolean to <project>, forcing the
> developer to be explicit about the use of this feature.
>
> So, I see filtering as a general-purpose token-to-property replacement
> tool and ${} expansion as an Ant buildfile/property
> construct. In other
> words, filtering provides public access to properties and ${} provides
> private access.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -John
>
>
