----- Original Message -----
From: "stephan beal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Before i start, let me say that i *know* my approach is non-canon. i'm
just
> trying something new here, and in doing so i found a problem with
> PatternSet.
No you didn't. Don't confuse the "how task setters work when defining
patternsets" to a problem with PatternSet. The only "problem" with
PatternSet that I've seen is that you can't nest them, which I will
implement soon.
> i need to jar different parts of our source tree into different jars - a
> total of about 15 jars. i could very well do that with 15 jar tasks, no
> problem. Instead what i've chosen to do is implement it like so, in
> properties:
>
> my.jar = de/einsurance/foo/**/*,de/einsurance/bar/**/*
> my.jar.exclude = de/einsurance/foo/test/**.*
> another.jar = de/somecompany/somepackage
> yetanother.jar = org/apache/tools/ant/**/*
> yetanother.jar.exclude = org/apache/tools/ant/taskdefs/optional/**/*
>
> myjars = my.jar,another.jar,yetanother.jar
> (yes, myjars contains property names, not values)
>
> My object works like so:
> <eijar basedir="${classes.out.dir}"
> jarvarlist="${myjars}"
> destdir="${build.jar.dir}"
> />
>
> The non-standard addition there is 'jarvarlist'. My object does the
following
> with that var:
>
> For each name in jarvarlist, we do getProject().getProperty(
propertyname ),
no need to use getProject, its a member variable of Task: project. Just an
FYI.
> and that property contains a list of includes (or null). We pass that
value
> to super.setIncludes(). We then look for a optional var named
> "varname.exclude", and pass that value to setExcludes(). Then we just run
> super.execute(). It works fine, except that the behaviour in PatternSet
hoses
> it.
You sure do enjoy making life more difficult on yourself, don't you?! :)
You jump through all sorts of hoops - and there is certainly easier ways to
do what you're doing. I don't have the time to think through your very
non-standard probably-never-to-be-added-to-Ant-core <jar> hack, but you've
got to work with PatternSet as it exists - those setters are functioning as
they should. Think about it from the XML introspection perspective and
you'll hopefully see what I mean.
> Again - i *know* this is not a standard Ant approach, but i've done it
this
> way because, quite frankly, i don't want people mucking around with the
> build.xml unless they need to, and providing this functionality via
> properties is an easy way for people do mess with it.
Surely there are ways to build multiple JAR files which don't require such
hacks. Heck, try the <foreach> and do it that way.
> To be clear, i'm not pushing for a fix to make this possible, but i am
saying
> that PatternSet.set{Includes,Excludes}() violates it's API docs by saying
> that it sets the value, when in fact it appends to it, and that should be
> fixed (even if the fix is an API doc update).
Then the docs are broken. Think about:
<patternset id="patternset" includes="....">
<include name="..."/>
</patternset>
Which of those patterns should it use? The one from the attribute? Or the
nested element? Or both? If both, how will they get appended together? :)
> As a workaround i would recommend changing it to:
>
> public void setIncludes(String includes) {
> ...
> if (includes != null && includes.length() > 0) {
> // same
> }
> else {
> // reset the list to empty.
> }
> }
No way. -1. 'nuff said.
Erik
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
