Wannheden, Knut wrote: > Certainly there are different things one can validate in the usage of a > task > or type. The validation you seem to be talking about is the actual values > of the parameters. And, no question about it, this is better validated by > the task itself. What I am more concerned about is the different > combinations of attributes and nested elements (in XML lingua) which are > allowed. Take the "refid" attribute of types for example: If you specify > the refid attribute, then no other attributes or child elements are > allowed.
I think this is also a problem of parameter validation, and I prefer the code checking it ( so both beans and xml use will have the check ). The task can also do a lot of things that are just not possible in a schema - like give good messages, or deal with complex situations or work around. I'm very interested in 'embeding' ant in applications, with no xml involved - and I really don't like requiring an XML file to check the parameters ( including child objects ). > Can you show me an example of how to (lexically) validate a <fileset> > instance? I think you'll have a a hard time doing it simpler than with > RELAX NG. I'm not interested in 'lexical' validation of the XML file. AFAIK you can't use Relax or XML schema on beans, so it won't help me. As I said - we don't need to argue about this, if it comes to a vote it can get a majority or not, my vote will be against and I'm unlikely to change. ( on tomcat we did had a majority against doing schema validations ) >> But if a task has a descriptor, there is absolutely no reason to >> require the use of taskdef ( unless the user wants to - for example >> to change a task name, which should be strongly discouraged and >> is no longer needed with ns ). >> > > Yes, I agree. But are descriptors loaded automatically by Ant? I thought > they were loaded by a <antlib> element. As I said, you can load them automatically with taskdef ( just like today - it just need an extension when the xml format is defined ). I'm ok with defining a new 'antlib' task, but I don't think it's necesary since taskdef already has a lot of the functionality. I didn't say 'automatic only' - just that both ways should be possible. I see no reason to require the user to duplicate information that is already available. > So you propose that all taskdefs take place completely automagically? No > <antlib> either? IMHO it would feel more natural if there were a No. I propose that both discovery and explicit should be used. And I prefer adding an attribute to taskdef ( or allowing xml in addition to the current properties file ), but if people want a new name - it can be antlib as well. > I don't see too much of a gain in requiring that the namespace URI be a > URL. I think if the specification says any URI should be allowed (in the > newest draft it's even IRIs) then I think it would be confusing if Ant > would restrict it to URLs. Again - I din't say 'require' ( that namespace be a URL ), but 'allow'. And if it is - use the information within. If it isn't - we'll need a redirection mechansim ( CATALOG like ) - so that user knows where to go to get the tasks. -- Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
