> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > holtdl 02/04/29 15:50:16 > > Modified: docs/manual coretasklist.html tasksoverview.html > . WHATSNEW > Added: docs/manual/CoreTasks do.html > src/main/org/apache/tools/ant/taskdefs Do.java > Log: > Even though the enthusiasm (even to just vote) was a bit, ahem, > underwhelming, at least there weren't any overwhelming objections, > so... >
-1. Sorry for missing the discussion but I have been on leave (Anzac day holiday in Oz). I am quite concerned about this task. It introduces another mechanism for running targets, in addition to <antcall>, which I'm not sure we really need. It just seems to be such a hack to bypass the dependency processing. The potential interactions with other "calling" mechanisms are problematic. The implementation based on a static hashtable of target names has many problems. I have attached a zip with two cases illustrating how the <do> task fails when interacting with both <antcall> and <ant>. In both cases I can execute a target with a property not being set where you would expect, based on dependencies, that property to be set. Improvements could probably be made to pass these two cases but, overall, I believe it is wrong to bypass the dependency mechanism. Conor
<<attachment: do.zip>>
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
