On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 19:30, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > >> At some point during discussion about Ant2 we've more or less > >> agreed that there'll be an antcall version that doesn't use an > >> execution context of its own - so that would cover (a) as well. > > > > Did we agreed to that? I thought we were talking about nested > > <tasks>, but not about some other <antcall> behaviour. > > Maybe my memory is failing as I cannot find it in the list of accepted > features either.
I think it was kinda accepted ... but I think I have changed my mind ;) > We will have to deal with this problem in the context of > multi-threaded execution of tasks in a target anyway. This probably > means that bigger parts of the core need to be redesigned for > multi-threading and that we document side-effects of some tasks > properly (so people know when they are going to get themselves into > trouble). The only real problem I have identified so far is the ProjectListener interface. Usually it assumes a serial set of event, but with parralelism it becomes difficult to decide how to arrange event dispatching system. I haven't been able to think of a nice way of "fixing" this. > > Yeap, nested constructs are powerful. But if we go that way, what > > stops us from having the same argument about <if><else> (or maybe > > <choice><case></choice>) type of constructs? > > Who said we wouldn't have these arguments? > > We are going to allow container tasks anyway - we need them for the > multi-thread implementation like we've currently planned it. I'm sure > somebody will create choice/switch/select/if/whatever tasks based on > this construct - and I think this is OK. If you feel you need an if > task, the container task way lends itself to it. I am fairly sure I will create at minimum an if task but it highly unlikely to be put in ants core ;) > > In ANT we have come up with a pattern for calling a subroutine which > > is based on <antcall> and the definition of <target>s. > > Have we? > > [targets as methods] > > > Should we have it, should we not? What should be the principle > > behind our answer? > > Well, to dogmatically answer the first. No! Just see the vote for Ant2 > features, it has been vetoed by no less that five committers. > > I don't have a less dogmatic answer at this time - I need to get some > things sorted out before I can come up with one. The more I have prototyped this the less I see the need for it. See my "do we need antcall" question a bit back. Reusable chunks should sit at a different layer. 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 | *-----------------------------------------------------*
