ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Conor MacNeill <>
Subject Re: antlib / proposal of Peter Reilly
Date Wed, 14 May 2003 12:23:24 GMT
On Wed, 14 May 2003 07:49 pm, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> Well I have not given the fight on the need for roles and separate
> symbol-tables for different Types. 

Well, I explained what I disliked about your roles proposal a long time ago 

What's changed? 

> I would like for someone to explain
> how <ejbjar>, <jspc>, <serverdeploy> can have vendor dependent
> <weblogic>, <jboss>, etc. within this model.

As I said at the time of your proposal
I believe polymorphism is the answer to these issues. It is how I would 
provide such extensibility when solving the same problem in Java. The 
definition of interfaces to be accepted by a task's addXXX methods is much 
simpler than the definition of new roles.

> As I have mentioned before, I have problems with this. It means that
> users are forced to use name spaces even if there are no collisions
> on the names of the components in the antlib, just because there is no
> way to find the antlib.xml otherwise.

Once you move away from a centralized management of the task namespace you 
need to cater for collisions. The accepted way to do that in XML is to use 
namespaces. Since you have to handle the collisions, why invent a new way of 
doing it? I don't really see the issue. The readability and usability issues 
(which is what we are talking about, right?) could perhaps be solved with 
explicit aliasing into the default namespace.

> ant-type polymorphism is not a priority for me, 

Pity - it solves most extensibility problems :-).

> addConfigured support is. 

What is addConfigured() for? I don't see a need for it.


View raw message