On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I guess we'd need something dynamic, i.e. there has to be a way to >> register a ressource prefix with RU so that I can have string >> representations for my own ressource types. > > I had assumed we could specify things in such a way as > to specify the resource type simply by its typedef, For some reason I never made that connection, even though it is obvious. That's why I didn't see a conflict with XML namespaces either. > but I suppose a shortcoming of doing it this way is > that for types from antlibs they must be explicitly > typedef'd or have their ns mapped. Well, I suppose > e.g. > > antlib:org.foo/customResource?bar > > wouldn't be the end of the world, I don't think it would be too much to simply require ressources to be typedef'ed if you want to use the String -> Ressource magic. >> For BC we'd have to keep the File-argument setters anyway. IH >> could be changed to use setSrc(Ressource) in favor of setSrc(File) >> and use the later if no ressource mapping was found. No real need >> to have a default in RU. OTOH it might be convenient for users >> when they can simply omit the "file?" prefix for files. >> > > That'd be quite a bit of IH modification to make it > preserve > 1 type for a given property. Not that bad. IH already favor setters for anything that's not a string over a plain String setter. But IH already is a pretty complex beast ... > I can't decide what would be the best all-around solution, but it > does seem that if we overloaded the same property setters with File > and Resource, it might be easiest overall to add explicit code that > setSrc(File) won't override setSrc(Resource) in IH (maybe no type > can override a Resource), would be easy, similar code already exists in IH. > then default to FileResources as planned. OK. >> > However I'm not sure what the RIGHT "trigger character" is and >> > IMO this is the only outstanding question stopping us from adding >> > this feature to Ant. >> >> bikeshedding? 8-) > > I get those little allegories mixed up. Is that the > one where we can blab back and forth forever, but > ultimately whoever is doing the work can make the > choice? Not really. It means we might be spending too much energy on discussing minor details (the color of the bike shed) while there are bigger problems to tackle. <http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/misc.html#BIKESHED-PAINTING> Even though you sounded as if the choice of character was the only thing that prevented us from implementing the feature, I was not accusing anybody of wasting our time. I was joking. > Actually, globmapper doesn't seem to support ?. ;) Ack, I should have known that. The regexp mapper does, though ;-) >> OK, what is left? "#", "="? Or >> "url(http://www.apache.org/)"? > > I kind of liked the parentheses thing when I saw it... > I wonder if it looks too much like a method call. parens might look strange when use in a regexp mapper, curly braces might be better and they don't even look like a method call. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
