Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 48001] Document differences between tasks' usage of mappers in some fashion.

[Matt Benson]

It seems that tasks that use mappers usually apply the mapper to a resource name; some tasks, like pathconvert, however, apply the mapper to the string representation of a resource (e.g. full path for a file resource).  Do we consider pathconvert's behavior anomalous enough to call it a bug?  Or rather, would we consider it so if we weren't afraid of breaking builds?  I am thinking our basic approach should be to document that name-only is the usual usage, then document task-level exceptions to this "rule" as we encounter them.  Opinions?

-Matt

--- On Thu, 10/15/09, bugzilla@... <bugzilla@...> wrote:

> From: bugzilla@... <bugzilla@...>
> Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 48001] Document differences between tasks' usage of mappers in some fashion.
> To: notifications@...
> Date: Thursday, October 15, 2009, 2:57 PM
> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48001
>
> Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@...>
> changed:
>
>            What 
>   |Removed           
>          |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>           Component|Core
> tasks               
>   |Documentation
>             Summary|Touch
> task with fileset and |Document differences
>                
>    |a mapper does not create   
> |between tasks' usage of
>                
>    |new files.       
>           |mappers in some
> fashion.
>
> --
> Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are the assignee for the bug.
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Stefan Bodewig]

On 2009-10-15, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@...> wrote:

> It seems that tasks that use mappers usually apply the mapper to a
> resource name; some tasks, like pathconvert, however, apply the mapper
> to the string representation of a resource (e.g. full path for a file
> resource).  Do we consider pathconvert's behavior anomalous enough to
> call it a bug?

I'm not sure.  Given the original use-case of Bugzilla issue 48001 I
would have expected it to work with absolute path names.

mappers should be applied to resource.getName() not toString() in
general, I agree.  Maybe I'm more surprised that the fileset resources
are not returning their full path name as their name then.

Anyway, I agree pathconvert's behavior is anomalous but it probably is
the way it is to preserve backwards compatibility to the pre-resource
collection implementation.

> I am thinking our basic approach should be to document that name-only
> is the usual usage, then document task-level exceptions to this "rule"
> as we encounter them.

Sounds good.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...