At 10:48 15/1/01 -0500, James Cook wrote: >The runtime tree allows variables to have scope much like a compiler engine >works when making nested or recursive method calls. ...snip...
Right but that is not neccessary. You can simply pass around a "context" tree. The context tree would have all the information needed - such as properties, environment conditions and probably stack trace. By removing the necessity of runtime task tree you vastly simplify the design and you revert to something more people can understand. Everyone can understand the "context" subject because it is basically a hashtable or properties object ;) >Properties (variables) >can be set by a task then a sub task is invoked with the variable equal to >that value. Next the subtask could change the value and invoke another >subtask. As the tasks finish, any variable settings they have made are lost >as they are popped off the stack. (Unless of course, they changed a global >variable which should be allowed.) +1 >Also, scripting support would benefit greatly from being able to dynamically >change the execution path, -1 Execution path should *never* in my opinion outside of a very few rare occasions (ant-call comes to mind) be able to do this thou YMMV ;) >or perhaps invoking the same task several times, >but with different property values. +1 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 | *-----------------------------------------------------*
