RE: Deriving from MatchingTask

2005-03-03 Thread Arun Gupta
This helps me understand the background. > > Lets say I'm a lazy programmer and dont want to > > specify nested elements in my task for only one > set > > of > > files that needs to be included. I'd rather > provide > > the option of specifying "includes" attribute as > > well. > > How do I do t

RE: Deriving from MatchingTask

2005-03-03 Thread Arun Gupta
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But does that mean I cannot have an > > "includes" attribute on my task and need to rely > upon > > the explicit nested filesets only ? > > Yep, that's what I'd recommend. > > Is > That much better than />? > > I personally don't think so.

RE: Deriving from MatchingTask

2005-03-03 Thread Matt Benson
--- Arun Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [SNIP] > > way, please do not derive from MatchingTask! > Can you share the reasoning behind this opinion ? MatchingTask has lots of baggage. Most tasks that extend from MatchingTask have to BE filesets and su

RE: Deriving from MatchingTask

2005-03-03 Thread Dominique Devienne
> But does that mean I cannot have an > "includes" attribute on my task and need to rely upon > the explicit nested filesets only ? Yep, that's what I'd recommend. Is That much better than ? I personally don't think so. I often give my nested elements more explicit names too, like , , etc... >

RE: Deriving from MatchingTask

2005-03-03 Thread Arun Gupta
--- Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [SNIP] > > Using an implicit fileset is just not as intuitive > > as > > using an explicit one, and I recommend you simply > > derive > > from Task, and have a > > add(FileSet ds) > > method. Your impl

RE: Deriving from MatchingTask

2005-03-03 Thread Matt Benson
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [SNIP] > Using an implicit fileset is just not as intuitive > as > using an explicit one, and I recommend you simply > derive > from Task, and have a > add(FileSet ds) > method. Your impl can then accept just one filesets, > or > many, in which case

RE: Deriving from MatchingTask

2005-03-03 Thread Dominique Devienne
> From: Arun Gupta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Also, searching in the list archives, I've seen it's > not recommended [1] to use MatchingTask as the parent > class. What is the motivation behind that > recommendation ? Is it going to be deprecated in a > subsequent release ? It should be, but too

Deriving from MatchingTask

2005-03-03 Thread Arun Gupta
I'm writing a custom task that require to support "includes" attribute and nested fileset elements to specify the location of source files. The source file list should be a union of files specified in the "includes" attribute and those specified in the nested fileset element (is that a correct expe