On Fri, 24 May 2002, Peter Donald wrote: > On Fri, 24 May 2002 12:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Also, making separate loader > > a feature would mean we require taskdef to create a classloader > > on each invocation - which is a dubious behavior ( at least for > > default ). > > does not really matter if it is an ugly hack (which I think it is too) but > backwards compatability does matter. Theres plenty of things that I consider > ugly hacks in ant (ie if/unless on targets) but are here to stay.
This is a backward compatibility case if we're talking about a feature or behavior that was expected to work this way. I never saw any documentation or code comment implying that taskdef is required to create new classloaders on each invocation. In older versions of ant it didn't even create a classloader. It is true, there is no documentation specifying that tasks and types should be useable togheter or even 2 different tasks loaded with different <taskdef> will be able to see each other. But it seems to me we have to choose one or the other, at least for the default ( with a magic property or explicit attribute we can support the other ). Maintaining backward compatibilty for the DTD and for the documented behavior is essential. Preserving undocumented behaviors may be good in most cases, but I don't think this is one. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
