On Friday 09 May 2003 04:08, Costin Manolache wrote:
peter reilly wrote:
Using property files is nice but with new attributes
to typedef (adaptor for example) it would be better to
use an xml file/resource.
I think we already agreed on XML - there is no reason to continue
adding
peter reilly wrote:
Using property files is nice but with new attributes
to typedef (adaptor for example) it would be better to
use an xml file/resource.
I think we already agreed on XML - there is no reason to continue
adding arguments.
This should be independent of using antlibs/jars or
From: Costin Manolache [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think you started with wrong assumptions here.
There is no need to change anything in the core or optional tasks,
you can have an antlib that uses multiple jars ( and most
likely antlibs
will eventually use some dependency mechanism
On Thu, 8 May 2003 12:30 am, Costin Manolache wrote:
The URI however should be chosen by the antlib author ( maybe based on some
rules specific to ant ), and should serve as an ID of the library.
My proposal is to use the (main) package name. There are other options -
but I don't think every
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
As someone already said, it's about not reinventing the
wheel, not about
enabling the use of fancy tools. But as ubiquitous and
accepted as XML
namespaces are, I see many things that could be gained from using
namespaces. Also, I suspect most users familiar
Conor MacNeill wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2003 12:30 am, Costin Manolache wrote:
The URI however should be chosen by the antlib author ( maybe based on
some rules specific to ant ), and should serve as an ID of the library.
My proposal is to use the (main) package name. There are other options -
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
But ANT is not for experience XML users but for Java programmers
or C or .NET (with the new tasks). ANT is popular because
it is simple to use you do not have construccions that require
you to read a full spec to understand. I am not against NS, but
I am against
peter reilly wrote:
The NS standard http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/
allows one to do somthing like this:
project xmlns:html='http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40'
target name=t
echo html:class=reallyimportantmessage/echo
/target
/project
of course it is up to the ant software to
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
Is there a DTD for XSLT? Can I validate an XSLT template against a DTD?
Not in general. This is a restriction of DTDs, which can't cope with
XML namespaces. DTDs are a SGML heritage and predate XML namespaces.
You can always construct a DTD which a certain class of
are not impossing any wierd semantics or making
assumptions, if I decide to use the same prefix for two antlibs it is up
to me to make sure there are no conflicts.
-Original Message-
From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 May 2003 14:35
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Roles
On Tue, 06 May 2003, Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
The important point is for the user (which is the one who has to
deal with name clashes) to have control of the final naming scheme
used in his/her buildfile.
Let's not reinvent the wheel here.
Let's not reinvent the wheel here.
The solution for names conflicts is namespaces - not rewriting.
I agree. With the new ProjectHelper2 everything should be in place to start
using namespaces.
This would also allow antlibs to have a DTD or XML Schema which could be
used in XML editors
From: Wannheden, Knut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's not reinvent the wheel here.
The solution for names conflicts is namespaces - not rewriting.
I agree. With the new ProjectHelper2 everything should be in
place to start
using namespaces.
I have no problem on allowing
Let's not reinvent the wheel here.
The solution for names conflicts is namespaces - not rewriting.
I agree. With the new ProjectHelper2 everything should be in
place to start
using namespaces.
I have no problem on allowing people to use namespaces, but I do
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2003, Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
The important point is for the user (which is the one who has to
deal with name clashes) to have control of the final naming scheme
used in his/her buildfile.
Let's not
prefix for two antlibs
it is up to me to make sure there are no conflicts.
-Original Message-
From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 May 2003 14:35
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Roles (was: antlib)
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Jose Alberto Fernandez
[EMAIL
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
From: Wannheden, Knut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's not reinvent the wheel here.
The solution for names conflicts is namespaces - not rewriting.
I agree. With the new ProjectHelper2 everything should be in
place to start
using namespaces.
On Wed, 07 May 2003, Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're reffering to the prefix
I was.
- of course, that's how NS works.
I know.
Stefan
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
I have no problem on allowing people to use namespaces, but I do
have a problem on forcing people to use them just because some others
want to use some fancy XML tool. The buildfile belongs to the
user and s/he should be in charge.
The buildfile belongs to the user,
From: Costin Manolache [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2003, Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
The important point is for the user (which is the one who has to
deal with name clashes) to have control of the final
Hi guys,
I was away on vacation so hasn't been around to make comments about the entire
discussion.
I will try to sumarize here some comments that go across several messages I
have read today.
The current antlib provides a way for the user of a particular antlib to
rename
one or more elements
On Fri, 2 May 2003 09:55 pm, peter reilly wrote:
No...
Ant does not have the infrastructure at the moment to support XML
namespaces, and their associated contexts.
It may be better to add that infrastructure then :-) It may also be better to
use XML Schema's syntax for Polymorphism as the
peter reilly wrote:
Yes, but more infrastructure is needed.
(Also, in current ant cvs, ComponentHelper is not used).
It's not used because I wanted some feedback on its interfaces.
The code is (almost) the same with the one in Project, and it
requires one little step to be enabled and pass
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
I don't see a need for separate namespaces depending on the
interfaces, so only using the child's element name (and namespace)
could be enough. I'm not sure whether I'm overlooking a problem.
Not sure I
I have done a little further work on my patch
to allow nested elements to have Project type
as a constructor.
If the object contains both addElement() and createElement(),
the addElement() method is used.
example:
typedef myfileset mypath anttest etc ..
copy todir=output
fileset
Peter,
example:
typedef myfileset mypath anttest etc ..
copy todir=output
fileset ant-type=myfileset dir=src
newattribute=MyFileSet attribute/
/copy
anttest
path ant-type=mypath path=build.xml
newattribute=MyPath
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Jose Alberto Fernandez
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem you are overlooking is the case of weblogic element
in ejbjar, jspc, serverdeploy, etc.
Maybe not really overlooking but understimating.
The alternative would be to use weblogicjspc and weblogicdeploy
for the
On Wednesday 30 April 2003 18:17, Costin Manolache wrote:
All the discussions so far were about adding an addSomething() - while
leaving all existing use cases unmodified.
Stefan introduced the concept of a typedef attribute, which allows
the ant core code to substitute a different class (named
Ok, I have coded ant-type magic attribute over lunch.
target name=run depends=init
typedef name=myfileset classname=MyFileSet classpath=classes/
mkdir dir=output/
copy todir=output
fileset ant-type=myfileset dir=src newattribute=Hi/
/copy
/target
I will update Patch
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, peter reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are still left the problem of the Type createName() pattern.
I don't think that it was solvable. Almost any soltion world require
cooperation of the classes implementing the create method.
What we can do is adapting all core
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, peter reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it is, with an addXYZ(Condition) method marking it up - I'm not
really fond of any of the proposed naming conventions so far.
Whats wrong with add(Condition) ?
Nothing so far.
We still need a solution for the ambiguos cases,
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
- Should we use (parent, child) tuple to find the class?
Should we use (ParentClass, parent, child) tuple ?
I'm not sure what the difference is, here.
In the second case, the parent class is also used
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
- Should we use (parent, child) tuple to find the class?
Should we use (ParentClass, parent, child) tuple ?
I'm not sure what the difference is, here.
In the second case, the
On Wednesday 30 April 2003 17:54, Costin Manolache wrote:
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, peter reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are still left the problem of the Type createName() pattern.
I don't think that it was solvable. Almost any soltion world require
cooperation of
From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 30 April 2003 16:24, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, peter reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it is, with an addXYZ(Condition) method marking it up - I'm not
really fond of any of the proposed naming conventions so far.
First, I must say that it would be nice to have
context dependent element names - my core example
is the element name containsregexp - is this a condition,
filter or selector ? , the different meaning may mean
that different classes should implement them.
However, I think that expressing this in
From: Costin Manolache [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
Assume class C implements role intrefaces P, Q, and R then
typedef name=C1 classname=C/
typedef name=C2 classname=C/
will cause two definitions for P and Q each. There is no way to
assign different
On Tuesday 29 April 2003 10:46, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
If you don't want if to be useable as a condition - don't make it
implement condition.
It sounds very nice, but the reality is that if already exists and has
existed for a long time. Hence we can not go and change it just because
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, peter reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4. public void add(NestedElement anInner)
5. public void addConfigured(NestedElement anInner)
Make NestedElement a FileSet and explain how you'd support accepting
ClassFileset or ZipFileSet as either srcfiles or destfiles in
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If ParentClass has no addMyChild()/createMyChild() method, we'll
need to look up in some table and find a class associated with
myChild.
OK, well, maybe, see below for an alterbative view.
We'll then look in ParentClass for an
On Tuesday 29 April 2003 12:49, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, peter reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4. public void add(NestedElement anInner)
5. public void addConfigured(NestedElement anInner)
Make NestedElement a FileSet and explain how you'd support accepting
On Tuesday 29 April 2003 13:12, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
I think the learning curve for beginners to grok
copy ...
classfileset .../
zipfileset .../
/copy
is steeper than the alternative
copy ...
fileset type=classfileset .../
fileset type=zipfileset .../
/copy
This is
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, peter reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is debatable
I said I wasn't sure 8-)
I think we should allow both approaches.
The main difference between them is that in approach 1 the child
determines the name of the element while it is the parent who does so
in the second
Hi Stefan,
Let me start by saying that the roles proposal had not in mind
solving the polimorphism issue (which I think is what is at the bottom
of your points here). I have no problem on arriving to a solution that
covers this aspect, but I do not want it to be the stumbling block
on the whole
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If ParentClass has no addMyChild()/createMyChild() method, we'll
need to look up in some table and find a class associated with
myChild.
OK, well, maybe, see below for an alterbative view.
We'll then
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Jose Alberto Fernandez
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This continues with the two-tier issue, the core conditions of ANT
you can just named, but the third party ones need to use some funny
syntax.
core conditions would use the same funny syntax, if it wasn't for
backwards
On Tuesday 29 April 2003 16:50, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Jose Alberto Fernandez
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This continues with the two-tier issue, the core conditions of ANT
you can just named, but the third party ones need to use some funny
syntax.
core conditions would
From: Costin Manolache [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
What does it all mean? It means we can now write a task,
well typed, which
can be accept different XML subelements depending on the
declarations of
other objects present on the build. The vendor specific
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
You'll have a task TaskA, with a method addRoleB.
And in XML:
taskA ...
implementationB1
/taskA
TaskA doesn't know anything about the implementation - it
will only use an
interface ( or base class ) RoleB as parameter.
I assume you will
On Monday 28 April 2003 17:28, peter reilly wrote:
An object of Cimpl gets method 3, An object of ABImpl is ambiguous and is
allowed.
That should be not allowed
Peter
From: Costin Manolache [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
In any case, all you really need is the tag name and the
class name - the
roles will be available as interfaces or superclasses.
Nothing special for
this association.
No. If you do it this way
My comments in-line:
On Monday 28 April 2003 16:35, Costin Manolache wrote:
To keep things simple and make it easier to get an agreement -
let's let adapters out, and focus on the core issue.
IMO it seems what everything leads to is the need to extend
the introspection patterns with another
On Monday 28 April 2003 18:40, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
condition property=x
and
if
istrue value=yes/
thenechoyes/echo/then
elseechono/echo/else
/if
istrue value=yes/
/and
/condition
From: Costin Manolache [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To keep things simple and make it easier to get an agreement -
let's let adapters out, and focus on the core issue.
IMO it seems what everything leads to is the need to extend
the introspection patterns with another case. Let's agree
on
From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
My comments in-line:
On Monday 28 April 2003 16:35, Costin Manolache wrote:
To keep things simple and make it easier to get an agreement -
let's let adapters out, and focus on the core issue.
IMO it seems what everything leads to is the
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
Assume class C implements role intrefaces P, Q, and R then
typedef name=C1 classname=C/
typedef name=C2 classname=C/
will cause two definitions for P and Q each. There is no way to
assign different names separately. On the other approach:
role name=p
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
What does it all mean? It means we can now write a task, well typed, which
can be accept different XML subelements depending on the declarations of
other objects present on the build. The vendor specific elements of
ejbjar, jspc and others are typical examples of
57 matches
Mail list logo
