> >My point is why should the protocol matter? Why *shouldn't* the attribute > "file" be overloaded? > > 1. it aint a file, it is a URL. I know that you can argue that it is a > remote file, but that assumes that the url endpoint is 'legacy' static > content, not some dynamically created or retrieved thing.
One is a local stream, other is a Remote stream - no major difference. In fact this idea has been discussed in other forms - Peter had suggested in the future we adopt as a valid command ant -buildfile jar:file:somefile.jar!/install.xml in http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ant-dev&m=100681347618956&w=2 So what would we do there? > 2. The more information we provide in the XML syntax, the less > interpretation which needs to be included in the runtime, which gives more Yep. I agree from developer's perspective - lot less headache. > list and wherever an attribute was overloaded: > <target depends="task1,task2" > > <exec os="windows 2000, unix" > (actually this is worse, as we just > substring match, so "windows" would still get a hit> > includes="...", excludes="..." So it caught your friend's eyes too? ;-) > 3. Remember that email about how we should have consistent property names, > srcFile and srcDir, destFile and destDir. Using srcURL and destURL would be > consistent. Yes, I know that <copy> isnt consistent with this scheme, but > that is a historical feature. We could make it consistent... I sincerely have no complaints what to name the url attribute - only issue is whether one such needs to exist and since I have heard at least 3 voices for it, I guess I will just give in ;-) Magesh -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
