On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> From: "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > No point in asking for other committers feedback,
>>
>> Why not?
>
> Well, I guess I did.... :))
The whole discussion had reached such a late point when I came back
from my Xmas vacation that it was more than a little difficult to
follow or even throw in my opinion (and don't ask about the general
lust 8-).
> I prefer the interface method and Ant should be defining the
> interfaces that vendors adhere to
I don't have a problem with them, but the FSF may have, that's all.
> I think we should be making life easier for task writers rather than
> tougher.
There is a certain balance to keep though. "Keep the core simple and
push complexity into the tasks" has been heard a lot around here and I
still follow it.
We could as well provide an implementation for
>> <usercondition classname="...">
>> <classpath ... />
>> <param name="..." value="..." />
>> </usercondition>
as a utility class, something like
PluggableComponent {
void setClassname(String name);
void addParam(Param p);
Path createClasspath();
Object getElement();
}
and anybody who wants pluggable elements would have to support a
nested element of that type - the whole find that class and configure
it logic could be hidden there.
This would make the live easier for task writers without making any
changes to the container.
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
