On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:41, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > I would like to see: > > > > > > (1) How to write <foreach> functionality over a fileset (or > > > equivalent). (2) How to write <javaon> functionality. > > > > loaded questions. Assumes we need this functionality. While XSLT could > > provide this I don't think they are needed given (3) > > > > > (3) How to write new pseudo-tasks that are defined as the sequential > > > execution of existing tasks with ways to pass arguments. > > > > See message with Subject "Re: Question about properties and ant2" on 14th > > September. > > I took a look at that thread, and as I suspected (since I would have take > notice otherwise) your example leaves out how to manage sets of files > needed during expansion. How do I say the equivalent of "<include > name='src/**/*.c' />" using XSTL? That is, how I create the lists of all > files in the filesystem (relative to the basedir of the project) which > match the include criteria above.
look above. reread. Ant is not a scripting language. Im not sure how many times that has to be said. Yes XSLT could do that easily enough (via extensions if you are wondering) but I don't think it should be. When I said "I don't think they are needed given (3)" I meant "I don't think they are needed given (3)". Any clearer? > Without that things like <apply> or <execon> cannot be express via > templates which is the point of the discussion. who said that ? I don't think the functionality you are desiring from apply/execon is desired behaviour. The functionality is better provided via alternate mechanisms. > Even in the presence of (3) > the point is how to do the expansion. How is easy. The question is "if" or "should" not "how". And my answer is "no". > > Right. But is "talk-talk" going to get us any closer to a solution to > > this problem? Of course not. Only way to get closer to solution is > > "walk-walk", people actually start working together and implementing > > things. I have no problem doing the work - hell in worst case I would do > > it all if I had too - problem is "design by committee" on a tool that is > > "good enough" at the moment. No one agree or even trys to work together - > > can you guess the end result ? I can. Egos are great things - no? > > I do not believe that using a separate template language is the solution to > all problems. Since you are the one pushing for it and disallowing anything > else that is different from your vision, then I think you have the burden > of providing a solution that we all can assess and accept or refuse once we > see what the implications are. walk-walk not talk-talk!!!!!!! I don't have to convince you of anything - you aren't a committer. I have to convince other committers or they me - considering the lack of agreement on simple things - do you honestly believe this is viable ? -- Cheers, Pete ------------------------------------------------------- To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. - Sun Tzu, 300 B.C. ------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
