On Wed, 14 May 2003 07:49 pm, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > > Well I have not given the fight on the need for roles and separate > symbol-tables for different Types.
Well, I explained what I disliked about your roles proposal a long time ago :-). http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ant-dev&m=101412538618582&w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ant-dev&m=101419370632010&w=2 What's changed? > I would like for someone to explain > how <ejbjar>, <jspc>, <serverdeploy> can have vendor dependent > <weblogic>, <jboss>, etc. within this model. As I said at the time of your proposal (see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ant-dev&m=101433479603790&w=2), I believe polymorphism is the answer to these issues. It is how I would provide such extensibility when solving the same problem in Java. The definition of interfaces to be accepted by a task's addXXX methods is much simpler than the definition of new roles. > > As I have mentioned before, I have problems with this. It means that > users are forced to use name spaces even if there are no collisions > on the names of the components in the antlib, just because there is no > way to find the antlib.xml otherwise. Once you move away from a centralized management of the task namespace you need to cater for collisions. The accepted way to do that in XML is to use namespaces. Since you have to handle the collisions, why invent a new way of doing it? I don't really see the issue. The readability and usability issues (which is what we are talking about, right?) could perhaps be solved with explicit aliasing into the default namespace. > > ant-type polymorphism is not a priority for me, Pity - it solves most extensibility problems :-). > addConfigured support is. > What is addConfigured() for? I don't see a need for it. Conor
