They share a common base class because they both use property files
to communicate their values back to the build script.
This is a design decission I don't understand. Why don't you simply
set the property directly?
For one I didn't know that's possible :-)
But now I do, I just made a version that does not hit property files...
Second, the task takes the default answer from the property
file, and the users input is cached between invocations of the
Ant script.
We ask the user a lot of site-specific information,
and all of it ends up in a file called "install.properties".
At the end we pull it in using <property file="install.properties"/>
The next time the user runs the script, all the answers are
already present in the file so they are presented as default,
the user just has to hit enter a few times.
I think it would be nice to have both possibilities, I could
rewrite it accordingly. If there is a file= attribute present,
it would write it out to the file in addition to setting the
property directly.
If you are thinking about including your tasks there, the package had
to be changed and you'd have to donate the code to the ASF.
That sounds reasonable. I'll have to check but I don't think it
would be a problem.
If I go ahead and do this, how do I proceed? I guess I should rewrite
the code, put it up somewhere for inspection and then someone needs
to approve/commit it?
Cheers
-Marc
--
_________________________________________________________________
Marc Liyanage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.access.ch/ml
Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted
_________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
