At 09:25 12/4/01 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >* Allow named tasks to be defined by <script> elements.
+0 Nice idea - but has it been thought out well enough ??? >* specify an onfail task or target that runs in case of a build > failure. -1 loggers get event and can respond to it, also what happens if onfail task fails ;) >* allow sequence to be specified in depends attribute or enhance > antcall to work with current list of executed targets +1 to enhancing antcall -1 to have order in depends >* 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>. +1 >* 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. -1 can get equivelent functionality via task that sets a property based on combination of properties/conditions >* provide a way to define the order in which targets a given target > depends upon get executed. -1 as above >* define task contexts that define various common aspects (logging, > failure handling ...) and assign them to tasks. +1 though this point needs clarifying. I would prefer it to be said as provide a way to configure facilitys that handle task aspects. 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 | *-----------------------------------------------------*
