ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: TaskAdapter/TaskFactory/RuntimeConfigurable
Date Fri, 01 Mar 2002 16:52:19 GMT
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, <> wrote:
> None of my proposals are touching class loaders directly

I am aware of that, you said so in a separate mail.  You just
shouldn't even mention them to support your changes 8-)

>> I'd love to see a project builder - whatever you want to call it -
>> that is namespace aware tommorow rather than in six months.
> That raises another proposal - enhancing the current ProjectHelper
> to be namespace aware is trivial - but will require SAX2.

I know, it's just that I've never come around to doing it myself and
you promised to do it while refactoring ProjectHelper.

> The ns information will just be passed to createTask and maybe
> stored/made available - but if the TaskFactory gets accepted, it's
> create method takes the ns param, so you can implement any fancy
> things there.

One of my goals with name space support is that we can start to ignore
certain namespaces (those that we do not understand) so people can
extend Ant's build file syntax to to additional things in the build

Think embedding gump project description in the build file for
example.  Adding extra documentation inside the build file.  Adding
information for a build file writing GUI. ...

[on -1s]

OK, a -1 is only a veto if a certain decision requires consensus,
which are not too many things.

> - it must have 'valid' arguments. Anyone can challenge the validity,
> and that requires a second opinion

Oh, I see where you get your second -1 from.  That's not been my
understanding of valid, but I guess a seconded explanation has to
count as valid.

> In our case - Peter arguments were that enhancing TaskAdapter to 
> support beans with arbitrary-named methods ( like pre-existing
> beans ) was that it's not generic enough ( but specific to 
> one project ) - I think it's a common problem. Also that it
> can be done in a task - and I think this is incorrect, since
> TaskAdapter is hardcoded. 

Let's see the factory and argue on the basis of what it can do, not on
what it could be abused for.


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

View raw message