On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > - it seems that 'named' loaders are ok ( or nobody so far > gave any argument against it ). By named loader I mean > a mechanism to define new loaders ( and their classpaths), > and a mechanism to use specific loader for different purposes > like taskdefs or task execution
As long as it is not part of the core there should not be any problem. > 2. Add a mechanism to request a particular loader to be associated > with a task. > > 2.1. <taskdef loaderRef='foo' > will associate the task with a > particular loader. -1. Create a ***NEW*** taskdef for all your new semantics. > 2.4. ( Peter's request ) The LoaderManager should be able to > control the loader used for each task: No way is the kinks of this near being worked out yet. Needs far more testing to be even able to vote on it. > Most of this proposal is very easy to implement and represents > small ( and natural, IMHO ) extensions to the current > model, with full backward compatibility and ( again IMHO ) > full control and flexibility for the user. Implement it as tasks and you are much higher chance of getting it in. -- Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | For those who refuse to understand, no explanation | | will ever suffice. For those who refuse to believe, | | no evidence will ever suffice. | *-----------------------------------------------------* -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
