This attribute would be rather handy for tools such as IntelliJ IDEA which allows the graphical display of available targets for invocation (within its Ant integration). It would be great if IDEA could know which targets are "entry points" to the build file and only display those for execution. For it to do this, the "public/private" attribute would be needed.
Phil Weighill-Smith On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 17:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I donīt see the need for such an attribute. And if introduced it should work > not only from commandline. It should work too, if invoked by other java > applications. > > > Jan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gus Heck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 5:58 PM > > To: Ant Developers List > > Subject: Re: AW: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 23397] - Need attribute for target > > tag to indicate hidden/internal target > > > > > > In fact I would be even more interested to hear the opinons of both > > commiters and non-commiters :). > > > > -Gus > > > > Gus Heck wrote: > > > > > Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: > > > > > >> What you would like would be useful to prevent the "wrong" > > targets from > > >> being called. But I wonder whether this change would not make ant > > >> unnecessary complex. > > >> > > >> > > > The default (atribute omitted) state should behave as > > always. This is > > > necessary for back compatability, and to keep the learning > > curve from > > > getting too steep. The import task gives me the same sort of worry > > > about complexity, but I keep reiminding myself... You don't have to > > > use it if you don't want it ;). So at least from the user > > side, there > > > is no obligatory complexity increase. The addition of > > another atribute > > > in the documentation for target would be the only brain drain :)... > > > > > > As for the development side, it may lead to increased > > complexity if we > > > add access modifiers with more complex meanings. As it is > > now, however > > > the only meaning of public/private is "do we reject it when invoked > > > from the command line" and the only time we need to check that is > > > already included in the patch. > > > > > > I too would be interested to hear what other commiters think. > > > > > > - Gus > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Phil Weighill-Smith Tech Lead Volantis Systems Limited 1 Chancellor Court, Occam Road Surrey Research Park Guildford, Surrey GU2 7YT mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.volantis.com tel: +44 1483 739 778 mob: +44 7803 498 603 This message may contain confidential information and will be protected by copyright. If you receive it in error notify us, delete it and do not make use of, nor copy it. Any reply may be read by the recipient to whom you send it and others within Volantis Systems Ltd. Although we aim to use efficient virus checking procedures we accept no liability for viruses and recipients should use their own virus checking procedures. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
