On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However on thinking about this (naming problem, namespace issues, > types etc) I realized that one could use the antlib scheme to solve > the problem:
I like what you outline. > Stefan Bodewig wrote: > >>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>I have reactivated my code for restricted/roled types. >> >>I think we need that in order to decompose ant.jar. >> > If this means making multiple jars from ant.jar, I would be against. Why? Even "core tasks" contains a bunch of tasks that really should go into a separate antlib - the cvs tasks for example. I didn't say we'd stop distributing them with Ant. Currently I favor a model where we have major releases of Ant's core together with a number of antlibs but the antlibs themselves can have releases independent of Ant. I'd like to be able to release a new version of the <javah> task without requiring a full Ant release. >>And I'd like to have shorter names, somehow. role="condition". >> > This becomes a naming problem... One would have to define the > mapping between the role and the class the type would need be an > instanceof. This mapping may need to be unique through a number of > third party antlibs - a world of pain unless use is made of xml > namespaces. role="antcore:condition" xmlns:antcore="antlib:org.apache.tools.ant" works for me as well. If this is what you meant. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
