> I definitely think we ought to consider using xml merging here, as the way
> Martin implemented it will definitely cause problems, eg. when you change
> the base directory in the redefined fileset, you can't just add the files
of
> redefined fileset to the original fileset definition ...
Hmm. I do not test it extensively but I think I currently could merge 2
filesets with different basedirs becouse of I add it with this code:
foreach(string fname in sec.FileNames) {
AsIs.Add(fname);
}
So it adds only found files (after scanning) into asis of original fileset
> when we can use raw xml merging, we could allow allow partial definition
of
> types, meaning that the original definition does not have to pass all
> initialization rules as its only when actually referencing the type
> definition (after possibly merging it with additional xml) that an
instance
> of the type will have to be created
Agree. I'll think about it. If you have any idea (or Ian) how to do it put
it here!
> should we also use the class naming guidelines for the enum field (eg.
> RedefineMode.Replace instead of RedefineMode.replace instead), in order to
> have it match our other enums (we could perhaps consider resolving them in
a
> case insensitive way)?
Aree. Sorry about that. Still it is little unconsistent when all strings in
.build script should be lowercase.
> perhaps we should also rename the mode attribute to redefinemode, as that
> name is more meaningful and there's less chance of it conflicting with an
> existing attribute ...
Ok. No problems here.
Martin
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software.
Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering
advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms.
Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html
_______________________________________________
nant-developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
