On 9/13/06, Matt Benson wrote: > > --- Dominique Devienne wrote: > > > > I did not see the changes. But in principle I > > agree with Dominique > > > that a roledef should have 3 attributes : > > > name, role, classname > > > > Just to clarify, I like the way Peter implemented it > > (binding a class > > to a name, without specifying what "role"s this > > class should play). > > But the term "role" also implies to me a (name, > > role, classname) > > tupple, which is why I'd prefer not using , > > that's all. > > > > Last night I thought that , although > > longuish, might be > > a better term than or . --DD > > is okay, given ComponentHelper, etc. > But agreed, long. What about ? Am I correct in > assuming we'd have, with whatever name: > > classname="oata.taskdefs.condition.And" /> > > classname="oata.types.selectors.AndSelector" /> Yes, this is the case. My original idea was: ? > > Then what about or ? Other names: (just kidding). For me: sounds the best. Do not forget that this will probally not be used outside the ant core code as the resultant name may not be used at the top-level, or in targets - or sequential bodies. Some classes thus may have multiple names associated with them, a unique top-level name and a restricted name that can be s -Matt > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > dev-help@ant.apache.org > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org > >