From: "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I agree with Bruce that placing the (de)selection actions directly > into <fileset> rather than nesting them into patterns looks and feels > more natural.
Yep. I am looking forward to his modified stuff with extendculler, <and>, <or>, <not>, etc.
I hope to be able to get something ready this on the weekend (I only have time to work on this stuff on weekends). Among the changes (some of which may not make it):
1) Renaming all the classes (see below)
2) References
3) Selector containers (<and>, <or>, and <not> at least)
4) Test <extendselect> to make sure it actually works as designed
5) A few more selectors implemented, including <filenameselect>. This means users can choose not to use <include> or <exclude> at all, if they wish.
6) ba dum, ba dum, and whatever the hell else you want to see in there
> > Rob's syntax idea is intriguing. >
Yep, I had asked Bruce to include and, or, not too. ( The last few lines of http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ant-dev&m=101468510019951&w=2 ) Rob has nailed it with his superb syntax proposal.
I agree. Not only is it clean, it eliminates my objection to the term "Selector". Using his syntax, it is clear that we really are selecting things. I'll be doing a global replace on my code to reflect this.
Clarifications I think that the documentation will require are:
a) think of <include> or <exclude> as <filenameselect/> and <not><filenameselect/></not> repsectively
b) All selectors under <patternset> and <fileset> are implicitly <and>ed together. All filesets under a task are implicitly <or>ed together. Note that this addresses the issue I raised last week about the forced combination of patterns in a fileset. If you don't want that to happen, just write <fileset><or>...</or></fileset>.
This raises an interesting question, though. Should Selector containers accept <patternset>s as elements and internally convert the <include>s and <exclude>s into equivalent selectors? If so, does it make sense to use references for individual Selector containers, or should references be based on <patternset>s which are collections of selectors? No harm in both, perhaps.
Another question is whether I should still include the "inverted" attribute, given the existence of <not>? Also, what is the behaviour of multiple selectors within a <not>, are they treated as <and>ed together or <or>ed?
Bruce's argument is it is confusing (and unnecessary) if it does both.
Yes, no need to drop selectors in under both <include> and <exclude>. The reason I didn't like <selector> was that it looked like it could pick up files from the file system, when in fact it could only work with <include>d files. Using Rob's syntax, they really can select files independent of <include>s if that is what you want to do. So Selectors it is.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
