At 08:11 17/12/00 -0800, James Duncan Davidson wrote: >On 12/14/00 9:05 AM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Neither proposal will allow you to directly manipulate task instances atm for >> good reason. They both handle it through an abstract - mymidon does it via >> condifuration objects while AntEater does it through nested hashtables (I >> assume as it is not done fully yet). > >There's a difference, and a significant one, between manipulating task >instances (ie instances of objects of a particular task type) and tasks -- >the entire definition of which is contained in a Task object and which is >reflected into the task instance at runtime.
yep. >AntEater doesn't make you go through nested hashtables. You can get Targets >from a Project, and get the Tasks from that Project. The hashtables that you >probably looked at are the internal data structures that the task class >definitions live in. Much different. Nope - both proposals treat them identical. Just like mymidon tasks are backed/represented by Configuration objects AntEater tasks are represented/backed by Task/hashtables. 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 | *-----------------------------------------------------*
