Hi,
I would like to add getURL() to Resource before Ant 1.7 ships.
I would add it to the Resource base class, and to ZipResource, FileResource.
I am not clear whether it is better to signal that a particular Resource does not provide
URL by throwing UnsupportedOperationException (as Matt suggested) or by returning null.
Concerning custom URLProtocolHandler (s), I am not clear how this works ?
Regards,
Antoine
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:08:48 +0100
Von: Steve Loughran <stevel@apache.org>
An: Ant Developers List <dev@ant.apache.org>
Betreff: Re: Resource.getURL()
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> --- Antoine Levy-Lambert <antoine@gmx.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello Matt,
> >>>
> >>> thanks for fixing my fixes !
> >>>
> >>> did you already add getURL() to all Resource(s) ?
> >>> this would be cool to be able to always set the
> >>> SystemId in case of XML documents of all sorts.
> >> I have been thinking it might make sense to add
> >> getURL() to Resource. Did a discussion on that
> >> already take place?
> >
> > I don't remember any.
> >
> > Given that Resource as a class and not an interface we are able to add
> > new methods even after 1.7.0 without running the risk of breaking the
> > code of people who implement their own resources. Given that there
> > wouldn't be any code in Ant 1.7.0 that used getURL() we should defer
> > adding the method as well, IMHO.
>
> maybe, but if a subclass adds its own getURL() method bad things happen.
> Also, if subclasses ought to override it, then we dont give ant1.7-based
> resources a warking.
>
> >
> >> And, for example, what would we do for resources of
> >> nonstandard "protocols"? Would a StringResource with
> >> value "foo" return "string:foo" as its URL? Should we
> >> install custom protocol handlers for built-in
> >> resources and encourage the same be done for
> >> third-party resource implementations?
> >
> > +1 for custom protocol handlers.
>
> Its very hard to add custom protocol handlers in java once you have a
> classloader tree. and you increase the effort needed to implement a
> resource.
>
> How about having a hasURL interface that resources can implement? That
> way things like my <random> component dont need to bother.?
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
|