At 09:44 4/12/00 +0100, you wrote: >Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I see the following as the scopes >> 1. Workspace >> 2. Project >> 3. Target >> 4. Task >> >> Scope 4 is completely seperate from all others so can effectively be >> ignored. > >Apart from this mail I've never seen the Workspace scope.
hmm - I think I may have used a different term for it ... I think Sam was talking about System level scope or something similar and my brain just naturally translated this to Workspace ;) >I see the >distinction between Workspace and Project is somewhat similar to the >one between Project and Subproject - there are some properties you set >in the higher level that should never be overwritten and others where >it should be permitted IMHO. I agree. > >> I don't think anyone has decided how property setting will work (ie >> are overwrites allowed, do we always write to current scope or >> parent scope or ...) but other than that do I grok the current ideas >> ? > >I'm not sure it has been decided to unify properties as they are in >1.x with references to something new (properties 2.x) but I can't >remember anybody arguing against it. Okay - I was thinking that something like this would be useful to unify all the different data-types. <property name="foo"> <mydata-type attr="1"> ...blah... </mydata-type> </property> Where mydata-type could be filesets, patternsets, filter-sets, mappers etc. The different types that could be created would be dynamically registered at runtime. So if if some-one wanted the BlimBlamBlah data type to be added that they could implement an interface and register it through a property file. They could then declare and use it just like filesets/patternsets etc This kinda functionality would be useful for certain specialized areas. >Other than that I think you've summarized the current state correctly >- but maybe that's just because I agree with you 8-). ;) Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
