ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rob Oxspring" <roxspr...@yahoo.com>
Subject RE: [DISC] details of task library concept
Date Sat, 26 May 2001 02:10:47 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Oxspring [mailto:roxspring@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 9:45 PM
> To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISC] details of task library concept
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Donald [mailto:donaldp@apache.org]
> > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 6:43 AM
> > To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> > Cc: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [DISC] details of task library concept
> >
> >
> > At 06:16 AM 5/25/01 +0100, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> > >> Ick. I don't think I like using namespace in this way. I can handle
> > >> naespace for "static" structural aspects (ie indicating task
> > >> library or
> > >> aspect attribute/element) but it can get confusing to use
> > >> namespace to also
> > >> indicate other projects.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Well this are not really XML name-spaces, since they are on
> the attribute
> > >values. Not the attribute names. In any case, if we are going
> to include
> > >things in one another we will need to have a name dereferencing
> > operator. In
> > >this case is ":" but it could have been anything else ( "^" "->" "!" ).
> >
> > Excellent - I like.
> >
> > Static namespaces (ie task/aspect) allocation uses ':' for resolution
> > Dynamic instance namespaces (ie other projects) allocation uses '->' for
> > resolution (I prefer this over '.' as '.' is commonly used in names of
> > properties).
> >
> > So we would now have something like
> >
> > <target name="foo" depends="otherPrj->before-foo,
> otherPrj->before-foo2">
> >   <echo message="Here is the value of public property blah.present"/>
> >   <echo message="in project 'Other': ${otherPrj->blah.present}"/>
> > </target>
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> I'll not pretend that a lot of thought went into using #, but
> this
(ie ->)

> certainly works from the clarity point of view
>
> btw is Jose correct about having to escape it as &gt;?  I didn't think the
> escaping was required within attributes, but it wouldn't be the
> first time I
> was wrong!
>
> Rob
>
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Pete
> >
> > *-----------------------------------------------------*
> > | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
> > | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
> > | everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
> > |              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
> > *-----------------------------------------------------*


Mime
View raw message