Can it be just this?
<macrodef..>
<attribute../>
<and>....</and>
</macrodef>
- Alexey.
On 10/4/06, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have made a patch to do this:
<macrodef name="is-empty-file">
<attribute name="file" />
<fragment>
<and>
<available file="@{file}" type="file" />
<length file="@{file}" length="0" />
</and>
</fragment>
</macrodef>
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40678
Peter
On 9/27/06, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/26/06, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Peter: as you are the father of macrodef your opinion
> > was one I was very interested in getting. I'm not
> > sure I understood your example below. Could you
> > clarify, and maybe elaborate on any ideas you have of
> > what we might try to make macrodef more generic (I
> > assume you mean so that it would just "work"
> > regardless of its "body" contents.
>
> Yes,
> I am not too sure about the mechanism, and there would
> be naming issues (esp with regard to DynamicConfigurable and it;s ikk)
>
> One maybe be able to do something like (taking examples from ant's
> build.xml)
>
> <macrodef name="trax.avail">
> <element>
> <or>
> <and>
> <isset property="
> javax.xml.transform.TransformerFactory"/>
> <available
> classname="${javax.xml.transform.TransformerFactory}"
> classpathref="classpath"/>
> </and>
> <available
> resource="META-INF/services/javax.xml.transform.TransformerFactory"/>
> </or>
> </element>
> </macrodef>
>
> <condition property="trax.impl.present ">
> <trax.avail/>
> </condition>
>
> - or -
> <macrodef name="exec.includes">
> <elements>
> <include name="**/ant"/>
> <include name="**/antRun"/>
> <include name="**/*.pl"/>
> <include name="**/*.py"/>
> <include name="**/*.py"/>
> </elements>
> </macrodef>
>
> <chmod perm="ugo+x" type="file" failonerror="${chmod.fail}">
> <fileset dir="${dist.bin}">
> <exec-includes/>
> </fileset>
> </chmod>
>
> These are a bit lame, your example is better!
>
> <macrodef name="isEmptyFile">
> <attribute name="file" />
> <elements>
> <and>
> <available file="@{file}" type="file" />
> <length file="@{file}" length="0" />
> </and>
> </elements>
> </macrodef>
>
> The point is that this <macrodef> does not know about
> the type (if any) of the tags in the <elements>, it a macro
> more like c macros.
>
> Peter
>
>
> > Worth mentioning
> > is the fact that macrodef's nested "sequential"
> > appears to be a convention only; an actual Sequential
> > object is not used; I'm thinking this is a good thing.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Matt
> >
> > --- Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> >
> > > +1,
> > > It would however be nicer to make macrodef
> > > more generic. To inject the UEs into the macro
> > > instance.
> > >
> > > Like:
> > > <macrodef name="engine">
> > > <attribute name="impl">
> > > <dom>
> > > <service
> > > type="javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory"
> > > provider="@{impl}"/>
> > > </dom>
> > > </macrodef>
> > >
> > > <jar jarfile="x.jar">
> > > <fileset dir="classes"/>
> > > <engine impl="org.me.SimpleLang"/>
> > > </jar>
> > >
> > > Do not know if it is possible.
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > On 9/26/06, Alexey Solofnenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1 Good idea, Matt.
> > > >
> > > > - Alexey.
> > > >
> > > > On 9/26/06, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It strikes me that we don't have a utility to
> > > > > declaratively build custom conditions from
> > > others;
> > > > > macrodef would seem the obvious choice for,
> > > e.g.:
> > > > >
> > > > > <macrodef name="isEmptyFile">
> > > > > <attribute name="file" />
> > > > > <sequential>
> > > > > <and>
> > > > > <available file="@{file}" type="file" />
> > > > > <length file="@{file}" length="0" />
> > > > > </and>
> > > > > </sequential>
> > > > > </macrodef>
> > > > >
> > > > > But the result amounts to a Task: executable,
> > > but
> > > > > unavailable for use where conditions would be
> > > > > available.
> > > > >
> > > > > Would it make sense to allow this by allowing a
> > > nested
> > > > > <condition> as an alternative to <sequential>?
> > > Then
> > > > > cloning the MacroInstance class to
> > > MacroCondition
> > > > > implements Condition, for use when <condition>
> > > is
> > > > > specified? Cloning the entire
> > > MacroDef/MacroInstance
> > > > > family to have an entirely new task feels a
> > > little
> > > > > extreme to me here...
> > > > >
> > > > > Alternative suggestions?
> > > > >
> > > > > TIA,
> > > > > Matt
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > > protection around
> > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Alexey N. Solofnenko trelony at gmail.com
> > > > home: http://trelony.cjb.net/
> > > > Pleasant Hill, CA (GMT-8 hours usually)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
--
Alexey N. Solofnenko trelony at gmail.com
home: http://trelony.cjb.net/
Pleasant Hill, CA (GMT-8 hours usually)
