At 09:04 AM 6/12/01 -0400, Glenn McAllister wrote: >Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > >> I think that rather than adding another attribute here and another there, we >> need to rethink the way properties are passed and then fix the problem at >> the root. I think that is part of the agenda for ANT2. > >Fair enough, but Ant2 is way down the road - we won't be seeing this for a >couple of months at least
at absolute bare minimum ;) >and we will probably see at least one more Ant 1.x >release before then. In point of fact, we may see a number of 1.x releases as >people who need the JDK 1.1.x capability keep maintaining it. agreed. >This is a not unreasonable feature to ask for. The default behaviour is the >status quo - properties from the parent override those of the child. Only >those who require the child properties to override the parent will do so with >the attribute flag. I think this is a case of providing an advanced feature >for those who really need it, but doing our best to make it difficult to shoot >yourself in the foot with it. If you want to use it, you have to explicitly >ask for it. > >The original reason for having the properties of the parent take precedence >over the child's stems from the same train of thought that says properties from >the command line override those set in the build file. The rational is pretty >much exactly what Creag described. While this is appropriate in the vast >majority of cases, there have been times when I *really* wanted to be able to >inherit properties from the parent. > >So in my reduced role as an effectively inactive commiter I'm supporting this >with a +1. Any vetoes? I would +0.5 it ... though it may be better to discuss ant2s model now and see if we can at least align them. This is a feature that is not really possible to "fake" but is needed in some areas. However I would hate to create an Ant2 incompatible mechanism ;) 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 | *-----------------------------------------------------*
