----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 6:01 PM Subject: [DISC] core extensions
> * Allow named tasks to be defined by <script> elements. > OK with thi sin principle. I'd like to know more about this. > * specify an onfail task or target that runs in case of a build > failure. I think this is pretty popular and useful. I think it needs some thought about how it is specified per project per target per task > > * allow sequence to be specified in depends attribute or enhance > antcall to work with current list of executed targets I don't think we should guarantee sequence. If the sequence is required, it can be set up but appropiate depends relationships. Not sure what the issue is about antcall, I'll try to follow up the dicussion. > > * Support nesting tasks into other elements - not just as children of > target - as proposed by Thomas Christen in > <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ant-dev&m=98130655812010&w=2>. Yes, I support this. I think composition of tasks is powerful. Powerful enough to blow up in the task writer's face, no doubt, but it would give all the people who want this facility the tools they need. I think Thomas showed how nicely it could work for <parallel> and <sequentail> constructs. > > * Make if/unless attributes to check for the value of a property, not > only its existance. > +1 > * check for more than one condition in if/unless attributes. > I think we are going to need some boolean support. To see people nesting stacks of targets to get the appropriate boolean behaviour is a contorition which they shouldn't need to go through. > * provide a way to define the order in which targets a given target > depends upon get executed. -1. There is a way, defined the dependencies with the targets themselves. > > * define task contexts that define various common aspects (logging, > failure handling ...) and assign them to tasks. > Seems OK, in general.
