On Friday 25 April 2003 16:45, Wannheden, Knut wrote:
>
> It'd be natural to people who've worked with XML Schema Instance documents,
> where you'd write something like:
>
> <classpath xsi:type="my:somekindofpath"/>
>
> Maybe the XML Namespace like notation of "my:somekindofpath" could mean
> that "somekindofpath" is a task/type defined in antlib "my". But also
> something like
>
> <my:somekindofpath/>
>
> by itself (not nested in another task) could be made possible. In both
> cases Ant would have to use the "somekindofpath" task in the antlib
> registered as "my" (or actually the URI which "my" is a prefix for).
>
> > A thing to note is that "ant:" assumes that an xml namespace
> > is set-up,
> > <... xmlns:ant="...">
>
> The way described namespaces could be used to denote antlibs.
>
> But again, I guess these ideas are both about antlib and roles (and even
> about the use of namespaces).
Yes four different items.
I have been thinking about using namespaces with antlibs like this:
<project>
<.. init properies .../>
<use xmlns:antcontrib="antlib:${ant-contrib.jar}"
xmlns:antelope="antlib:${antelope.jar}">
<target name="test">
<antelope:if>
....
</antelope:if>
<antcontrib:foreach ...>
</target>
</use>
</project>
>
> > Another similar idea could be:
> > <classpath implementationClass="acme.ant.TrickGump" ...
> >
> > > are alternatives (without any claim for completeness) with quite
> > > different consequences when it comes to the implementation side of
> > > things.
> >
> > One of the consequences is that Javac's public method
> > createClasspath()
> > may need to be modified.
>
> Yes, the addXXX() methods are probably way easier to deal with.
Yes, Introspection should allow constructors having Project as a parameter.
