Magesh Umasankar wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> My original Ant 1 patch (which Magesh has cited) used a different
>> approach where it tried to guess which underlying method is to be used. I
>> haven't studied Magesh's patch in detail but for fully flexibly
>> polymorphism, you need to identify the type of the object being passed
>> and the method on the task to which you will pass it (i.e. two
>> independent things). Using only
> one
>> piece of information (the type name) has limits.
>
> Yes. If the method name to be used is also to be dynamic,
> we can make that happen as well - but, I think, going forward
> with baby steps will be easier. If I start packing more and
> more into a single patch, the chances of its inner workings
> being debated in detail gets slimmer ;-)
As I said, I'm +1 on the original patch - I see it as an improvement
that can be further improved :-)
You know me - if something doesn't have a clear solution I usually
propose a hook :-)
We already have a number of hooks on element configuration, maybe the
way to go would be to extend those.
I have a use case: have introspection recognize ${dyn:properties} that
evaluate to objects, and call the right method ( instead of
object->string->object conversion ). Another use case would be a more
pluggable mechanism for the "property editors" ( the convertors between
strings and real params ).
JMX introduces another set of use cases - if we want to support
JMX tasks using a task adapter, we'll need to use MBeanInfo and
setAttribute to configure it.
IMO it may be a good idea to find the best "extension points" and
add hooks in the right place, and then play with different options
( some will be added to core, some may stay outside ).
Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
