On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:14, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> Yup, its me again! :)
woohoo!
> The issue that Peter brought up with ant/antcall is being addressed in this
> patch. Property was modified to allow setting user properties without
> warning, but that mode cannot be enabled from a <property> statement (I
> removed the setUserProperty method as it was undocumented and probably only
> used by ant/antcall under the covers).
Okay. I made a change here by making that constructor protected rather than
public. I also readded setUserProperty() so as not to break binary
compatability. However I nooped it and made it print out a annoying message.
I also removed isUserProperty as it was never used anywhere ;)
> Project had several calls to setProperty in it, which in theory could
> generate a deprecated warning. I added an internal method to allow setting
> "basedir" and a couple of other places to set a property silently if it
> wasn't a user property (setPropertyInternal, its protected, although
> private would have been ok with me too).
private it is ! ;)
> I modified getProperties and getUserProperties to return copies of the
> collections to prevent modifications of properties that way.
excellent.
> I updated WHATSNEW (maybe the <available> back door shouldn't be mentioned
> there - maybe we should just close that open door :).
Well I will remove the blurb about available just in case it gives people
ideas ;)
> This should be yet another step forward in the battle against property
> mutability. Let me know if there are any problems with this patch or if
> I've missed something.
;)
Could you check I applied the patch correctly and didn;'t miss anything ;)
--
Cheers,
Pete
----------------------------------
"Don't play dumb with me.
I happen to be an expert at that"
- Maxwell Smart
----------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
