Tackling the thread from its last message ... On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 10:15, Conor MacNeill wrote: >> > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Two I can not see the need for sequential at all as similar >> > functionality exists with antcall >> >> Using <sequential> within a <parallel> block is simple and >> effective. Using antcall to achieve the same thing would be >> heavyweight and unnecessarily complex. > > Breaking a target into three targets (with if attributes) instead of > having a single if task is unnecessarily complex - but we still do > it ;) You cannot completely compare them, as breaking a conditional task into three targets may be unnecessarily complex, but it is not heavyweight - oppose that with current antcall. As long as antcall is not the lightweight operation we expect it to become in Ant2, there is room for <sequential> IMHO. > I just think we should stick to existing patterns instead of > introducing more variability. Agreed, but ... see above. > From the design of listener interface I expect event logs to behave > like they do in SAX. ie a tasks output occurs between start and end > task events. And I have written loggers accordingly. If you use the > information internal to each BuildEvent however it should be > fine. OK, so it is a documentation issue, as well as a question of adapting the listeners that ship with Ant, right? > Ouch - theres the rub - Also a great place to have a child > logger/category ;) A great place to have hierarchical TaskContexts 8-) Stefan
