Bug 20262 - RFE: allow not arround patternsets
Summary: RFE: allow not arround patternsets
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Ant
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Core tasks (show other bugs)
Version: 1.5.3
Hardware: Other other
: P3 enhancement (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ant Notifications List
Depends on:
Reported: 2003-05-27 14:13 UTC by Nicolas Mailhot
Modified: 2008-11-24 03:57 UTC (History)
0 users


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Nicolas Mailhot 2003-05-27 14:13:49 UTC
When you copy from a source dir using a patternset and filterset, you usually
need to do something with the un-filtered files, and having to define a mirror
patternset to select them is just plain stupid.

(Well one can work around this but the not is a natural thing to do - just an
extension of ant's current fileset logic)
Comment 1 Stefan Bodewig 2003-05-27 14:29:37 UTC
You can do that, just don't use patternsets.

The way to accomplish what you want is a set of <or>ed <filename> selectors - and
then you can easily wrap a <not> arond a refernce to that.
Comment 2 Nicolas Mailhot 2003-05-27 14:53:38 UTC
Well, let's just say I already had the patternset (basically text-files
patternset so I can mangle text files without breaking binaries) on hand so
using it was the natural thing to do.

While I do appreciate the workaround (thought of two others for the actual xml
file I maintain - with copy one can just copy over and over again with
overwriting disabled) it's really convoluted compared to the natural
<not><patternset/></not> syntax.
Comment 3 Stefan Bodewig 2003-05-28 07:21:14 UTC
I see - so what we are missing is the "pick patterns from a file" feature of
patternset to make selectors a full fledged replacement, otherwise I don't see
a useablity difference between

<patternset id="foo">
  <include ... />

<copy ...><not><patternset refid="foo"></not></copy>

on the one side and

<selector id="foo">
    <filename .../>

<copy ...><not><selector refid="foo"></not></copy>

on the other.
Comment 4 Nicolas Mailhot 2003-05-28 07:40:36 UTC

I basicaly don't care ifs it's a selector or a patternset, what's annoying is
having two similar constructs with different (and not ovelapping) limitations.

Complete one or the other and remove/deprecate the limited one from manual so
people won't use it, that's all I ask.