On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeap, it would have been nice if the list had had a > chance to discuss the implementation before it was > committed. This is kind of difficult as we are not talking about a single commit. You may remember that I've sent both the original implementation of IntrospectionHelper and the RuntimeConfigurable/UnknownElement stuff to the list before committing it - it is a long time ago, but you've been here, I know that. Back then, the code was not as brittle as it is right now - things have evolved over time and features have been added or stuff got rewriten to account for bugs and all that. You know that, I'm sure. At some point there is no other way to get rid of cruft than to completely rewrite what started as something simple and turned into a monster. I see this rewrite happen in Ant2 as I'm afraid you cannot rewrite it without breaking compatibility. If Adam finds a way, I'll give him all support he can get. > One of the problems I see, is that when code gets put in by > committers, in very few occacions other review the code. I hope (and believe) that this is not true. > Another solution which I think could be backward compatible is to > have DataType extend Task and provide, possibly final, > implementations for all the methods required by Task making them > harmless. This would work for the data types shipping with Ant, but there is nothing in the code that forces a data type to extend DataType. Stefan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
