ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Costin Manolache <>
Subject RE: antlib
Date Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:50:31 GMT
Dominique Devienne wrote:

> Because:
> 1) Having an <xyzdef> for every single one adds new elements for nothing,
> and is not extensible to custom types (like <buildpath>) to define its own
> new typed role/interface (<buildpathresolver>).

You only need a <componentdef> ( or just use the existing typedef ) - and
have class implement whatever interface you need. You can define any role
you want by having an interface and classes implementing this interface.


> 2) <antlib> supercedes <taskdef>/<typedef> (which remain for backward
> compatibility), adding extensibility to other types (within Ant or not)!
> Why are you getting hang on <antlib> per se? What's bad about having an
> in-build-file <antlib>? It's not worse than a <taskdef>, and better
> because extensible to new roles/types/interfaces/beans, whatever!
> The point being that AntLib doesn't define new component types, it allows
> *me* and *every other* build file writer to define my own new component
> types and/or implementation of existing component types.
> I don't care how you want to implement it! I want the functionality AntLib
> provides ASAP, so if you don't provide a 'better' proposal that solves the
> same issue, namely being able to plug in not just types/tasks to Ant which
> are configured like regular types/tasks, then your -1 squarely goes
> against my *need*, and the needs of quite a few others; a need I hope you
> agree is important... --DD

View raw message