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 Thu, 15 May 2003 06:56:57 GMT
On Thu, 15 May 2003 12:56 am, peter reilly wrote:
> I have merged the ant-type code into my antlib code.
> However it uses a "magic" attribute name "ant-type" to
> achieve the effect and not as discussed before - the
> namesspaced attribute name like - "ant:type".
> I can easily do a name-spaced attribute name for this,
> however if this is done there will be only one object in
> the xml name space uri - type. Would this be reasonable?

I would prefer to use the XML schema attribute for this. 

I have done a quick review of you proposal. I wonder if we can split this into 
smaller chunks to make it easier to understand and review. For example, the 
onError stuff could be split out, as could the URL handling code for separate 
consideration. Smaller chunks are easier to handle.

Anyway, it seems to me that you have combined the namespace URI and element 
names in certain places. Examples: In component helper changes, for method 
createComponent, you say 

	the name of the component, if
	the component is in a namespace, the
	name is prefixed withe the namespace uri
	dropping the "antlib:" and adding ":".

Why not pass the URI and local name to the component helper and not have to 
parse it out in componentHelper. Your approach also precludes URIs that 
contain ':' (I know you disallow these elsewhere but I don't see any reason 
to combine these, anyway)

I'm not sure where TaskAdapter went. createNewTask seems to return null if the 
class is not a Task - probably handled somewhere else.

I'm not sure about addType methods. It usually limits only one element to 
being extensible - consider a task taking two filesets for different reasons. 
OTOH, I guess a lot can be done with it. The element names in 
IntrospectionHelper would need to have URIs as well, won't they?

For the most part it looks OK to me. I'd need to look more closely to fully 
comprehend it but thought you might like some feedback.


View raw message