On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First question I have is whether we could just flatten the tasks > within the Target and report them that way. The task relationships > within the target could potentially be ignored for logging. That > would mean we don't need to care about the parent relationship.
Yes and no - it is possible to have multiple open targets with ant or antcall inside <parallel>, but the logic here could be rewritten. We would lose structural information with that approach, of course. I've got no real opinion here. > In any case, the taskElement and taskStartTime needs to be changed > from a single variable into a Map. Yes, same for targets. > We probably need to sort on task start time in the targetFinished > method. Yes. > Other than that we may need to add the parent reference (A > TaskContainer). I can't see any harm, even if it just to support > logging. It may make OwningTarget redundant. This is the major problem - it does make the OwningTarget redundant, but we cannot remove it savely (that backwards compatibility stuff). The harm I see is API bloat combined with more backwards compatibility issues in the future. > So, we are going to have put some sort of warning about that in > WHATSNEW file. Yes - we may need a new section for this, as it is no real backwards compatibility problem (you will only notice the problem when you use the new features, especially the parallel task). Stefan
