From: "Tim Dawson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Jose Alberto writes: > > I do not think we should tie location of tasks with > > priviledge. For example > > <property> does not need more priviledges than <available>, they both > > just set the value of properties. However we like one at > > project level and the other not. > > Why exactly is that? if you're setting a property with <available> it seems > perfectly reasonable to be able to do that at the top level if that sort of > thing is to be allowed. As an Ant user, I'm at the mercy of the Ant core > authors as to whether or not I can define this at the top (thereby making it > available to all targets) or whether I have to do a bunch of dependencies on > each and every target. >
Oh, I knew my example would stir the <available> pot. ;-) I have no idea why <available> is the way it is. I have heard people complaining and heard others defending it. I think the reason includes in part not wanting to have more names hardcoded on the parser 8-/ In any case the discussion of what should be allowed where is a different one. I am just advocating the means to be able to have such discussion. > That said, I can *almost* buy off on the concept of putting <taskdef> and > <property> (and <available> and other "tasks that declare things" at the top > level IF you're talking about implementing real scoping, i.e. if doing > <taskdef> and <property> inside a target means it is no longer available > outside that target. > I do not think we are advocating <target> as a separate scope. Since we still need to be able to set properties based on how the build process goes. Project-level is executed before the build target are run. Jose Alberto
