I'm in complete agreement Whitney and Jose! -Peter
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 1:41 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Properties and the <ant> tag > > > > From: Whitney Hunter > > > > Is it just me or does anyone else think that it is bad that > > when the <ant> > > tag is used to execute a sub-build, the properties defined in > > the enclosing > > build file override the properties defined in an enclosed > build file? > > > > It is not just you. I feel the same way. As long as having > the property > defined > within the <ant*> takes precedence from the declaration in > the build file. > > > The semantics that I expected (and I think is best) is for > > the properties of > > enclosing file to be available in the enclosed unless they > > are defined in > > the enclosed file. If a property is redefined in an enclosed > > file, it should > > override the enclosing file. If you want to override an > > enclosed property > > from the enclosing file, then use the embedded property > > syntax for <ant>. > > This is way that environment variables work in various unix shells. > > > > Comments? > > I have mentioned it before. The current semantics makes > absolute non-sense > since it assumes that every property in every biuldfile being > build has the > same meaning. So if I use ${thefiles} a one file, this name > cannot be used > in any other enclosed or calling file, unless they have > exacltly the same > meaning. Which is the same as having just one global name > space that one > need to administer between all build files you ever try to add to your > build. > > Unmanageable, indeed. > > Jose Alberto >
