On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not like roles
I'm not sure we are really talking about roles at all here.
What Matt and DD and I and others who've spoken up mostly want are two
things:
(1) Be able to use <istrue> via add(Condition). I had to extend
ConditionBase to make AssertTask accept Ant's built-in conditions,
this is cumbersome.
(2) resolve naming conflicts we'd get when we have multiple
definitions of the same name.
DDs idea to have antlib individual descriptors for conditions,
selectors and so on that the user can use simple works here. You can
still use the existing tasks without any namespaces and you can
explicitly load conditions into a namespace if you want to (or have to
to resolve conflicts). This really would already be enough for me.
What brought the term "roles" was that DD didn't have a better term
for the collections of things that are together in one such antlib
descriptor.
And then we'd really like something shorter, sweeter than
<project xmlns:c="myconditions">
<typedef resource="org/apache/tools/ant/types/selectors/typedefs.xml"
uri="myconditions"/>
...
<condition>
<c:istrue ...
Something where loading of the descriptor gets triggered by the
namespace URI, but this is optional, at least for me.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
