This is a little delayed, but I've been meaning to wade through the (long) proposal for a while.
From: David Rees [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:22:01 +1000, Peter Donald wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >Excellent - someone else who agrees with the things I been > preaching about > >for ages ;) > > > > Well that is a gratifying way to start a response ;). FWIW, I agree. This is very much what I'm looking for also. Our use case started as I wanted a simple way to define the contents of the <lib> element for a war file. Our existing build file says that anything in directory "./opt/" is included, but thats a bit ugly. A person might be building 10 apps, each in their own WAR, and each war might share the same support libs. We would like to be able to provide a text file that specifies which jar files to add. To do this currently requires pre-processing on buildfile. That might be a reasonable way to do it, but when you think about it, there's no reason why a fileset should be defined as a directory + patternset, a predfined list of files should be equally usable. Once you take that step, you end up getting something close to David's proposal. > >>The problem is that there is no way > >>(that I know) to indicate the "name" of included element. For > >>instance, in the following contrived example here is no way to > >>indicate > >> > >><CopyAndDelete> > >> <FileSet ... /> "files to copy" > >> <FileSet ... /> "files to delete" > >></CopyAndDelete> > > > >Sure you can you can just name them different things in the > set/add/create > >methods ;) > > > > If I am understanding you, you are suggesting that you would have a > setCopyFileSet() and setDeleteFileSet() and the XML would look like > <CopyAndDelete> > <CopyFileSet ... /> "files to copy" > <DeleteFileSet ... /> "files to delete" > </CopyAndDelete> > the problem I see with that is that there is no way to use a sub-type. > The set/add/create methods currently (IMO) do not distinguish between > type and attribute/sub-element name. There is if you use refids, which was how I thought of doing it. <ftp-fileset id="ftp-apache-org"> <ftp host="ftp.apache.org"> <mget pattern="*.*"/> </ftp> </ftp-fileset> <CopyAndDelete> <CopyFileSet refid="ftp-apache-org"/> <DeleteFileSet refid="tmp-files/> </CopyAndDelete> > >>5 AntFile > >....snip Virtual File System blurb... > > > >There is one included with the opensource version of forte > > IIRC (forget name of project atm) netbeans > The Sun WebNFS proposal has support at the URL level which plugs > nicely into the above and also has an "XFile" proposal which might be > close to what we want. I will take a look at it and report back. For > some reason the download isn't working this evening. > http://www.sun.com/software/webnfs/ds-webnfs.html Any word? I personally don't care if/how a VFS is implemented, just as long as a fileset is no longer tied to a physical directory + files, and it is possible to code new fileset types if needed.
