Dominique Devienne wrote: > Because: > 1) Having an <xyzdef> for every single one adds new elements for nothing, > and is not extensible to custom types (like <buildpath>) to define its own > new typed role/interface (<buildpathresolver>).
You only need a <componentdef> ( or just use the existing typedef ) - and have class implement whatever interface you need. You can define any role you want by having an interface and classes implementing this interface. Costin > 2) <antlib> supercedes <taskdef>/<typedef> (which remain for backward > compatibility), adding extensibility to other types (within Ant or not)! > > Why are you getting hang on <antlib> per se? What's bad about having an > in-build-file <antlib>? It's not worse than a <taskdef>, and better > because extensible to new roles/types/interfaces/beans, whatever! > > The point being that AntLib doesn't define new component types, it allows > *me* and *every other* build file writer to define my own new component > types and/or implementation of existing component types. > > I don't care how you want to implement it! I want the functionality AntLib > provides ASAP, so if you don't provide a 'better' proposal that solves the > same issue, namely being able to plug in not just types/tasks to Ant which > are configured like regular types/tasks, then your -1 squarely goes > against my *need*, and the needs of quite a few others; a need I hope you > agree is important... --DD
