RE: [nant-dev] patch for FileSet extension

[Gert D. <ger...@te...>]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nan...@li... 
> [mailto:nan...@li...] On 
> Behalf Of Martin Aliger
> Sent: vrijdag 6 mei 2005 11:54
> To: 'Gary Feldman'; nan...@li...
> Subject: RE: [nant-dev] patch for FileSet extension
> 
> >Interesting.  I think there is an opportunity for optimizing this, to
> eliminate the asis by changing the synchronization point.
> >For example, if the contents of the foo1 fileset were not 
> computed until
> actually needed, then you could do away with the asis and 
> apply the exclude.
> 
> I'm not sure I want change something in such fundamental 
> thing as fileset.
> Simple extension should be ok, but change some 
> functionality... I dont want
> change whole NAnt, I just want to contribute small 
> enhancement which I find
> very useful. Since I dont use asis myself I dont know what 
> for hacks it
> could be good.
> 
> To your second note: filesets are computed lazily - that 
> means when they
> used for first time. There are some issues about it (like 
> creating fileset
> then deleting some files and wondering why their names are 
> not stored in
> fileset!). Merge operation is use of fileset, so I 
> explicitelly scan it. Its
> real need becouse of merging two filesets with distinct basedirs.
> 
> > What happens if you remove the implicit asis that you 
> > generate, and instead insert explicit asis attributes into 
> > the foo1 fileset?  
> 
> It workes well (except doubling bug 1195736), excludes 
> working. Only "issue"
> is that every file from merged fileset is scanned twice. Its not big
> performance issue, imo, since scan pathed file is just test for file
> existence. I'll make some more testing with this config and 
> let you know.
> 
> > (Regardless of what the decision is, the test cases need to 
> > include all combinations of asis, include, exclude, fromdir, 
> > relative basedir, absolute basedir, and omitted basedir.)
> 
> That would be really nice. Unfortunatelly possible 
> combinations grow with
> factorial - noone have time to write all those testcases. But 
> I'll try to
> write a little more of them.

I think you should await consensus that this feature is indeed necessary,
and as such will end up in NAnt cvs.

Gert