On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:40, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> Using above rule, the class would have been ExecOnTask - how would >> that improve the situation? Same for CallTarget.java that would >> be CallTargetTask, not AntCallTask ;-) > > Not really talking about existing Ant1.x where the names are already > set in stone. Talking more in context of new tasks to ant1.x and > ant2. My point was that we sometimes rename tasks because the first name that came to our mind sucked for some reason. Nothing will stop *me* from picking bad names for tasks that need to be changed by others in Ant2 ;-) >> Maybe it would be better to not place any classes into the taskdefs >> package that are not implementations of tasks but utility classes? > > Thats another possibility. However that implies we have to use inner > tasks a lot more. Why? I didn't say don't write or use utility classes, just that you shouldn't put them in the taskdefs package. Stefan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
