> From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > 1) The taskdefs are not supposed to be extended by users. I would > > argue > > that they should be. Ant is supposed to be extended by > users writing > > their own tasks, and using the existing tasks as base > classes is, in my > > opinion, a natural first step. I agree that the Ant kernel > is off-limits > > to users, though. > > I take some issue with this. The classes corresponding with the > <taskdef> are not what I'd consider something folks should extend, > generally speaking. I feel these classes should be more of a facade or > wrapper over underlying API that is to be designed for reusability. > Does that make sense? For example, the <exec> task uses a more > generalized API under the cover to execute native programs. So, rather > than extending ExecTask, make your own task and use Execute under the > covers to do the work.
OK... Yes, I can see that being more robust in the long run... The lazy eval can then be done not by the property class but in the task encapsulating the Ant task. I'll try to go that route first. Thanks! /LS -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
