ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Costin Manolache <>
Subject RE: xml namespace support in ant2
Date Wed, 02 Oct 2002 14:51:46 GMT
Wannheden, Knut wrote:

> Certainly there are different things one can validate in the usage of a
> task
> or type.  The validation you seem to be talking about is the actual values
> of the parameters.  And, no question about it, this is better validated by
> the task itself.  What I am more concerned about is the different
> combinations of attributes and nested elements (in XML lingua) which are
> allowed.  Take the "refid" attribute of types for example: If you specify
> the refid attribute, then no other attributes or child elements are
> allowed.

I think this is also a problem of parameter validation, and I prefer 
the code checking it ( so both beans and xml use will have the check ).
The task can also do a lot of things that are just not possible in
a schema - like give good messages, or deal with complex situations
or work around.

I'm very interested in 'embeding' ant in applications, with no xml
involved - and I really don't like requiring an XML file to check the
parameters ( including child objects ).

> Can you show me an example of how to (lexically) validate a <fileset>
> instance?  I think you'll have a a hard time doing it simpler than with

I'm not interested in 'lexical' validation of the XML file. AFAIK
you can't use Relax or XML schema on beans, so it won't help me.

As I said - we don't need to argue about this, if it comes to a vote
it can get a majority or not, my vote will be against and I'm unlikely
to change.
( on tomcat we did had a majority against doing schema validations )

>> But if a task has a descriptor, there is absolutely no reason to
>> require the use of taskdef ( unless the user wants to - for example
>> to change a task name, which should be strongly discouraged and
>> is no longer needed with ns ).
> Yes, I agree.  But are descriptors loaded automatically by Ant?  I thought
> they were loaded by a <antlib> element.

As I said, you can load them automatically with taskdef ( just like today -
it just need an extension when the xml format is defined ). I'm ok
with defining a new 'antlib' task, but I don't think it's necesary
since taskdef already has a lot of the functionality.

I didn't say 'automatic only' - just that both ways should be possible.
I see no reason to require the user to duplicate information that
is already available.

> So you propose that all taskdefs take place completely automagically?  No
> <antlib> either?  IMHO it would feel more natural if there were a

No. I propose that both discovery and explicit should be used.
And I prefer adding an attribute to taskdef ( or allowing xml in addition
to the current properties file ), but if people want a new name - it can
be antlib as well.

> I don't see too much of a gain in requiring that the namespace URI be a
> URL. I think if the specification says any URI should be allowed (in the
> newest draft it's even IRIs) then I think it would be confusing if Ant
> would restrict it to URLs.

Again - I din't say 'require' ( that namespace be a URL ), but 'allow'. 
And if it is - use the information within. If it isn't - we'll need 
a redirection mechansim ( CATALOG like ) - so that user knows where to
go to get the tasks.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message