> -----Original Message----- > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Dienstag, 3. September 2002 08:07 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Porting <fileset> 'file' attribute to 1.5 branch > > > On Mon, 02 Sep 2002, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> another question: Why not extend the concept to several files > >> instead of a single file? E.g. <fileset file="foo.txt,bar.txt"/> > > > > A FileSet must be rooted at a base directory - this is what makes it > > sometimes painful to work with. > > Maybe it is time to drop that restriction in a way? Say, if there has > no dir been given, assume that the include patterns specify absolute > paths? >
Or even relative paths, which would be relative to basedir, as usual. > > So only a single file can be turned into a FileSet, unless perhaps > > there is logic to climb their directory trees and find a common root > > and base them from there. > > Which only works if they are on the same file system for those exotic > OSes with multiple file system roots. > Extending the fileset to include files with different roots would be another possibility. Maybe the path, fileset, and dirset structures can be merged into a single structure sometime... > > Wannheden, Knut wrote: > > > >> Further (as I'm not familiar with the details of the > >> IntrospectionHelper) I was wondering what happens if the value > >> identifies a non-existant file. I suppose I will get a message > >> like "No directory specified for <fileset>.", right? > > I think so, as soon as you use it. > In that case the error message is somewhat misleading. Maybe that case should be treated differently then. Also, a check to make sure that not both the file and dir attribute have been specified would be nice, otherwise the behaviour isn't really predictable. -- knut
