Steve Appling wrote:
Is there any good reason to configure a DefaultTask? Can this give
some warning since it is most likely a mistake and the user probably
meant "<<".
One use for a DefaultTask with no action is as a grouping task, like 'libs':
task myLibs {
dependsOn { tasks.withType(Jar).all }
}
Problem detection is a pretty good option, if we can do it reliably. It
is probably a better option to come up with a clearer syntax. It's not
to late to add/change/remove stuff.
We've chosen a syntax that is high on conciseness and low on
self-description. This can be fixed with some tweaks to the
documentation, I think. Is the syntax really a problem once you've
figured out the difference? How often do you really leave out the << ?
There are other formats that one can use for defining tasks. Perhaps
this should be something an organisation's code standard addresses, just
like it does for other potentially problematic or confusing language
features.
Adam
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
