> From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >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 ;)
>
>

My point here is not to forbid it, but that you probably will need more than
just adding the parameter. You probably need a way to specify "default"
values for <properites>. So one probalby need to look at the whole picture,
even in ANT1, and of course it would be nice if it is consistent with the
path we decide for ANT2.

>
> 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               |
> *-----------------------------------------------------*
>

Reply via email to