On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:44, Conor MacNeill wrote: > > From: Tim Vernum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Similar to what I prototyped except with a syntax that did away with > > > getters. Essentially it was simplified to just > > > > > > <scriptdef name="scripttest" language="javascript"> > > > <param name="test" default="hello"/> > > > > +1 > > My motivation was to make scripted tasks somewhat similar to a real task, > as would be written in Java, particularly when using Rhino. I thought that > would make it useful for quickly prototyping a task for later development > in Java and also to introduce people to task development. > > In addition, the way I implemented <scriptdef> it can support nested > elements, which are potentially repeated > > <scriptedTask> > <fileset ...> > <fileset ...> > </scriptedTask> > > It is hard to support that capability with simple named parameters. > > Thoughts?
The way I did it was <scriptdef ... > <!-- for concrete implementations --> <element name="x" type="o.a.ant.FileSet"/> <!-- for stuff sucked out of registry --> <element name="x" role="o.a.ant.Condition"/> </scriptdef> The same thing was repeated with the template task and a few other tasks that defined task-like facades. > > Conor -- Cheers, Pete ----------------------------------------------- "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein ----------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
