Bill Burton wrote: ...
> Geir wrote: >>A great example of application differences are scopes... Darn important >>(sadly) in the servlet environment, but utterly irrelevant in Ant-driven >>tasks. Really? Conceptually, aren't there tools that apply to all templates of a batch (global scope) and potentially others that are specific to a particular template of a batch (local scope). An example of a tool with local scope would be one that provides access to the ant envrionment, like inputfilename, outputfilename, etc. Even if you have only one scope in a particular environment, it seems to me that it is not completely irrelevant to have the concept of scope. At least you could say something like "all tools have global scope" which would indicate that a tools is loaded once and used for all templates being processed, etc. It would be nice if we could establish some common terminology with regard to context tools across several envrionments (having in the back of my mind always the idea of setting up a library of context tools). > Despite that, the XML used to declare tools for the DVSL Task could be > made nearly the same as that for Velocity Context tools. The only > difference being that there would be no way to specify a scope attribute > to the DVSL Task. It would be really nice if we could agree on some common format for the XML used to specify tool! That would be an important step towards fostering the reuse of tools. Gabe -- Gabriel Sidler Software Engineer, Eivycom GmbH, Zurich, Switzerland -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
