Hi Ian, Jean, Allow me to join this briefly... I'll let you guys return to your regularly scheduled program afterwards :)
> >>Personally I find the taskdef mechanism a bit clunky for NAnt. > OK to be more clear - the way taskdef works derives from the ant model > where you have to register every task for it to be usable. Its also > badly named - its not defining a task its merely telling nant where to > find one. In addition, having to do a taskdef for every task in an > assembly when there is a perfectly good discovery mechanism seems > wasteful. Thats what I mean by clunky. That's cool. However, allow me to present an "alternative" point of view: Why can't we have *both*? The argument I've been hearing since taskdef was shunned (and I'm one of the ones that complained about this at the time) is that the config stuff is more flexible and more elegant. So what? Why does that preclude us from supporting both ways of doing it? That's what baffle's me (or actually, the resistance I've gotten from trying to present this before). Now, don't get me wrong, I like the idea of the config stuff. However, this is one case that doesn't fit completely into the config idea. Why? I don't know about other people, but at least where we use NAnt, we sometimes have project-specific tasks. Now, why the hell should I be required to *modify* my NAnt instalalation (which I may be using for many other projects) just so I can load those tasks? That, to me, is unacceptable. > it was felt that taskdef was mapping ants task loading model and not > that of NAnt. I can live with that. Let's us then do something that fits in NAnt's model but that caters to those escenarios that the config stuff doesn't. And make *that* part of the NAnt core. > I'm thinking that the mechanism to set the search path > from a build file would look somthing like : > > <taskpath path="..\foo"> > </taskpath> > or > <taskpath> > <fileset> > <includes name="..\foo" /> > </fileset> > </taskpath> > > which would trigger a scan of matching folders for task assemblies. > what do you think ? That sounds good to me. Perhaps a better taskname would be "loadtasks", though. -- Tomas Restrepo [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Nant-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-users
