Hiya,
On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 23:39, Darrell DeBoer wrote:
> > <sometask some-attr="$!{prop}"/>
> >
> > you'd have to do something more like this:
> >
> > <sometask>
> > <attr:some-attr property="prop" />
> > </sometask>
> >
> > Of course, the verbose syntax gives us a bucketload more flexibility.
> > for example, the <attr:some-attr> element could have a set of nested
> > condition elements e.g. <is-set>, <uptodate>, <class-available>, <os>,
> > some custom condition, etc.
>
> Yep, this is heaps more flexible. Don't quite understand aspects enough to
> understand how they come into play, but sounds good...
aspects *could* do this but I am not sure they should as such ;)
The more and more I play with aspects in combination with
AbstractContainerTask, the less and less useful I think aspects beocme.
Basically aspects are a way of altering the environment in which a task (or
set of tasks) operate. However this could be done by manipulating the
ExecutionFrame which makes tasks redundent (at least if we design our
services correctly). So I was thinking of completely removing them in the
future unless a revelation came upon me. So I woul dsuggest not relying on
them too much unless you can come up with a damn good reason to keep them
around ;)
--
Cheers,
Pete
-----------------------------------------------------------
If your life passes before your eyes when you die,
does that include the part where your life passes before
your eyes?
-----------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
