On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 22:10:57 +1000, Peter Donald wrote: >At 02:00 3/4/01 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >>Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> However it is at higher complexity build files (medium->high >>> complexity) where the advantage would be shown. Mainly as it would >>> allow core to be clean and handling of tasks predictable. For big >>> build processes it would allow customisation without magic variables >>> (ala GUMPs sysclasspath) and added value (ie assign fee: namespace >>> to something specific to buisness). >> >>So you propose namespaces to make the "aspect" system pluggable, am I >>getting this right? You want a facility to say "I'll take >>responsibility of all task attributes int the baz namespace"? >
I think the "simpler" alternative of introducing a context object with sub-elements should also be kept for consideration. I think it would easier for many to understand. Then taking control of logging is as simple as replacing the logging object. It also moves the logging/failure attributes out of Task, which I think is the right thing to do. In terms of big build processes you could have a set of named contexts defined to plug in and out. d
