On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Peter Donald wrote: > > <targetdef target='foo' name='footask' > > > <param name='param1' /> > > ... > > </targetdef> > > > > With the behavior beeing that of <antcall> > > Again, something like that can be implemented as a taskdef-like > > task in ant1.x, in an add-on jar. > > Not without other extreme uglies being introduced that the committers have > vetoed time and time again. It would almost mandate scoping or mutable > properties and recursive property reolution which has also been vetoed.
The only change that may be required in ant's core is to introduce a better task registry - which actually makes the code much cleaner. Something like a TaskRegistry class, which can handle both the current Class and a TaskFactory. Project will just call it, so it's 100% backward compatible, new tasks will use the new API. I would be curious to see a valid reason for vetoing such change. For the rest - it's just <ant> task with minor changes ( and it doesn't have to be part of ant, so no veto matter ). Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
