> Peter Vogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 1. Why be so strict about attributes on tags, such that you throw
> > an exception for any unrecognized tag?
>
> Because Ant doesn't expect to see anything that has meaning to
> something else but not Ant in a build file. We had a similar
> discussion a while back when we talked about adding documentation to
> build files.
>
Sorry, wasn't around for that. Again, my point is that you have here
a lovely, extensible language that *can* be easily extended as needed
by different organizations to support the build environment they need,
yet you turn the build.xml file into a straightjacket by throwing
a parse exception for no good reason. To say that the reason ant doesn't
like it is because ant doesn't like it is the most circular of arguments!
Given that it is *trivial* to ignore attributes you don't understand, and
that it *doesn't* damage the functionality of ant, and that it *does*
enhance the functionality of environments built around ant, why limit
yourself and every other potential user of ant?
Namespaces are nice, but since you aren't using SAX2 right now, you
are putting off functionality that could be there *today* for some
nebulous future. Further, whether you ignore something from other
namespaces or ignore something you don't understand at the moment doesn't
really matter, does it?
>>
>> } else if {key.equals("owner")) {
>> /* ignore me */
>> ...
>You mean with the opening brace before key translated to a paren?
Yes, sorry, typo...
>Don't think so, sorry. If we'd start this, we'd be adding exceptions
>for anybody else as well.
The fact that you believe you would be adding exceptions for everybody
else as well just lends further credence to my argument that ant *should*
be ignoring attributes it doesn't recognize -- it's a feature we could all
use in various clever ways to better support *our unique development needs*.
Thanks,
-Peter
--
Manager, Configuration Management
Arsin Corporation
4800 Great America Parkway Suite 425
Santa Clara, CA 95054
