ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject [DISC] Aspect Representation was [DISC] Aspect implementation
Date Fri, 01 Jun 2001 17:23:35 GMT
At 11:30 PM 6/1/01 +1000, Conor MacNeill wrote:
>I'd like to initiate a discussion of aspect implementation. I think we have
>some level of agreement that we will have aspects but no real clear idea
>about how they will look. 

I am not so sure about that ;) I think first we should discuss how things
will be represented in buildfile first, what type of aspects we will
support and then finally goto implementation ;) This was on my list of
things to discuss before I stopped sending them out.

First - representation. Currently I would prefer to support the following
style of aspect integration

 <mytask ant:id="foo" ant:classpath="..." ex:fail-on-error="false">
   <doc:description>Blah blah blah.</doc:description>
   <some-sub-element ... />

The important points in the above example are;
* aspect "elements" (ie doc:description) do not have any attributes or
sub-elements from another namespace
* Only the top level task element has aspect "attributes" (though this
would change with container tasks - more on this later)

I believe that application of these rules will allow most aspects to be
built but still allowing ease of implementation for both us and the aspect

It will also be simpler IMHO for build file writers ... though I am not
sure about this yet. Need to test it more.

Thoughts on this?

(I will send another mail about types of aspects needed).



| "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               |

View raw message