ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dominique Devienne <DDevie...@lgc.com>
Subject RE: antlib
Date Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:42:44 GMT
I probably didn't express myself correctly ;-)

I didn't say the string role was not necessary, I'm saying it's redundant
when the role itself corresponds to an interface. I can implement a single
class implementing a bunch of interfaces, each corresponding to a given
role, can't I?

Plus tasks/types will soon be only different in the sense that tasks have an
execute method, right? Forcing roles to map to an interface is probably a
*good* idea! Every single bean would become implicitly a data-type, and the
ones with an execute() method implicitly become tasks. Beyond that, all
other roles are interfaces. What's wrong with that? --DD

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 10:35 AM
To: dev@ant.apache.org
Subject: Re: antlib

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Dominique Devienne <DDevienne@lgc.com> wrote:

> If everything is defined as a component at a low level, then they
> can be easily introspected to find out what interfaces components
> implement.

This breaks down if there is no specific interface for a role - like
task or data-type.  And also doesn't address things that can be in
multiple roles.

At least for task I'd expect some strong opposition against an
interface that marks them up.  Hi Costin ;-)

Stefan

Mime
View raw message