On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "Erik Hatcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> From: "Bruce Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> > I'd like to challenge that design. To my mind, it is seriously >> > broken, and saying "It's not a bug, it's a feature" is no answer. >> >> I don't view it as broken, I just view it as "that is the way it >> is". >> >> There are other glaringly difficult issues with other datatypes >> that cannot be resolved in the 1.x codebase. > > What is exactly what will break on the Datatype?
It's not a question of whether it would break the API, it would change the behavior of existing build files. As Erik said, to him the current behavior is intuitive - and there a quite a few people for whom the same is true and they've created their build files around the current behavior. > OK, maybe I am naive, but is there anyone who writes multiple > patterns expecting them to be mush together at the end? Yes. <fileset ...> <patternset refid="exclude-jdk-1.2+" /> <patternset refid="exclude-jdk-1.1" /> <patternset refid="exclude-no-jai" /> <patternset refid="exclude-no-jmf" /> </fileset> taken from one of my build files. Each patternset is only a collection of excludes that lists files that require certain conditions to be present - this will certainly break unless all exclude patterns are applied at the same time. > I would think that writing builds like that will produce > incomprenhensible buildfiles. I don't think so - the alternative to above case would be to only define a single patternset with all excludes in it, which would probably be less readable. Stefan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
