From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > so you are advocating we don't have any task at top level and instead > > > require an init style target ? > > > > No. I am advocating not having the string "property" hardcoded on the > > parsing engine giving a special treatment to any task using such a name. > > > > Now, three different alternatives have been suggested for it: (1) disallow > > top-level tasks; (2) allow any class at top-level; (3) "mark" those tasks > > that should be allowed by for eample using a marker interface. > > > > I like (3), others prefer (1) or (2). You are the only voice, up to now, > > advocating on keeping the hardcoded strings. > > I am not advocating anything. It is just that sometimes this sort of thing is > needed to cut through the crap. >
The crap is that more than a year after the original 3 hours hack, we still have tasknames hardcoded in the parser code. > The simple fact of the matter is that you have yet to show a reasonable use > case for having a Declarable interface. In the future we only really need to > keep property outside unless we allow all tasks or none. Thus Declarable is > what is known as flexability syndrome. > The simple fact is that I have give you several examples including their implementations of tasks that either were hardcoded before or you plan to hardcode in the future (under the pretenses that they are not really tasks). It seems to me that you think you know all and every way ANT will or should be used and do not want anyone to deviate from your tight control. I continue to believe that there are things worth putting at the <project> level and that there are others like <jar>, <javac>, etc. that do not. And I still think the correct way of identifying them is by some sort of declararion either in the code of the task itself (interface) or during deployment. I have no hangups on names of interfaces. Jose Alberto
