DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22020>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22020 [PATCH] addition of access atribute to <target..> task ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-04-17 20:45 ------- Well, now that the big complexity in the access modifiers exists -<import>, what are we going to do with access. Which of these three do we want: 1. the access modifiers control access from the command line 2. private targets cannot be called from <ant> calls from other build files than (self) 3. private targets cannot be called from imported files. (3) scares me. Big time. add that and people will want protected, maybe even package private. And it complicates importing no end. Would it be an error to redefine a target that was private in an import? It is in C++ after all. Would it be allowable to depend on a private target you import? I am personally biased towards (1) -we just need to make explicit that public/private only applies to command line access, not to anything else. Nb, assuming we say "-*" defaults to private, what is the semantics of <target name="-secret" access="public"> ? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
