> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Jose Alberto Fernandez > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 1) How about collisions? Well, how about collisions between classes > > in the classpath? > > Putting antlibs into namespaces was supposed to resolve those > collisions, just like namesspaces in C++. >
And no one is saying that should not continue to be the case, but if I want to load something in the default name space, it is up to me to take the risk. > > How about loading a task that collides with one already defined in > > defaults.properties? What do we do in this case? Shall we react the > > same way? > > Sure, this (complain loudly) is what we're doing with multiple > <typedef>s for the same name as well. it may just be annoying, so > annoaying that people will avoid autoloading. > I do not buy too much this argument. If am "extending my ANT-CORE" with some 3rd party tasks is because that library does not collide with regular ANT tasks. This is the case of all the optional antlibs that we provide. And it may be the case of some specialized ant-libraries specific to some corporation. It is their job and their risk to try to cohabitate with the ANT tasks. Otherwise, they should use and declare name-spaces in their project files. > > 2) Shall we keep control on what gets aoutoloaded? I would say yes! > > Good 8-) > > > I disagree on having some global switch (option) instead I would > > propose something like -lib (no autoloading) and -autolib (do > > autoloading). > > But you'd use the same classloader for both, right? Otherwise > explaining Ant's classloaders becomes even more complex. > Well, this is just engineering ;-) There is a way to know where a resource is coming from. We just need to examine what we allow in and what we don't. > > 3) Have an antlib.xml in META-INF for autoloading. My only misgiving > > on doing it this way is the duplication of declarations. > > Matt's example of using different names for autoloads (that end up in > the default namespace) and namespaced tasks would show an example of > when you want to have separate files. This may be a bit artificial, > though. > This to me is the worst that we can do to ANT. How are people going to understand that is you use auto-loading the tasks of some library have some name, but if you do not, then they have some completely different names, oh and by the way you ALSO need to define a name space for them. Is there any other way to make things more confusing for people trying to use reusable code? I doubt it. Jose Alberto --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
