My vote does not count, as some of you have pointed out in the past, but I have to say that moving to having VARIABLES instead of declarative properties I think it is a big mistake.
You probably knew olready what my opinion would be, since I have\ been quite vocal about it, but for the record. Here it is. The truth of the matter is that as the original vote below showed this issue has always been whishy-whashy in the minds of the committers, and they have change their minds over and over depending on the argument of the day. Not to say the least that people that appear to have voted for mutability helped on fixing inmutability. Maybe after 6 months, we should go back to that list and revise if the opinions haven't change over time. Jose Alberto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 1:31 PM Subject: Immutability > Maybe I'm coming to late - have been too busy, sorry - but I'll try > anyway. > > Has anybody of you (those of you pushing for property immutability in > the core) had a look at what we decided upon when we put together out > Ant2 requirements? I'm talking about > > * make properties fully dynamic, i.e. allow their value to be reassigned > > [will need more discussion because of vote by Glenn McAllister and > Conor MacNeill] > > [finally ACCEPTED] > > The actual votes her have been: > > +1 by Peter Donald, Stefan Bodewig, Conor MacNeill (with some scoping > and command line override remarks), Nico Seessle, Glenn McAllister > (with some scoping remarks). > > +2 Simeon Fitch > > no other votes. > > Can these votes all be invalidated by the patches that went in? > > Erik, I really appreciate all the work that you have done and you've > cleanup up a lot of Ant's core classes a fair bit with it, but maybe > we are really going one or two steps too far? > > We want to leave <property> as task the way it is, OK. We probably > also want to make all property setting core tasks behave the same way. > But do we really want to enforce property immutability as a core > feature? Our vote in April/May quite clearly says no, and at least > mine still stands. > > Having said that, let's rework the last patches so that existing core > tasks don't override existing properties but there still is an API to > modify properties. > > Consider this a -1 against the functionality of enforcing property > immutability in the core. > > Stefan > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
