On 2009-02-24, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I'm thinking maybe what we need here [1] is a way to wrap arbitrary > resource collections with archival information, like extracting the > archive attribute getters of ArchiveFileSet to an > ArchivalResourceCollection interface, implemented by ArchiveFileSet > as well as sugg. ArchivalResources which would take any embedded > Resource(s)... then filelists or explicit <file> resources could be > used (these should fail if missing I think).
That's what I hinted at with my comment about filelists (I thought filelists would fail if missing as well). So yes, the bigger problem for the more strict collections is/was that you loose information. > Then to create archives, archival tasks would look not for > ArchiveFileSet per se but ArchivalResourceCollection or ArchiveInput > or whatever we want to call it. What holes have I missed in this > approach? If you want to use that approach (and I don't think you are miissing anything), please don't use instanceof checks but rather the Resource.as method I introduced when I extraced the mapping logic - that way one can write decorators for new interfaces without having to implement all the other interafaces as well. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
