> From: Antoine Levy-Lambert [mailto:levylambert@tiscali-dsl.de] > > From: "Jose Alberto Fernandez" > > I am trying simply to get some action done. I have also > updated the proposal > under proposal/sandbox/antlib yesterday to cater for changes > in Project.java > and ProjectComponent; the commit message got hit by the 100k limit. > I have no problem on moving along, that is fine with me. My only concern is that some times once code gets committed it becomes an unmovable object with respect to the API, but if we still take it as fluid I have no problem to start with something. > >Well I have not given the fight on the need for roles and separate > >symbol-tables for different Types. I would like for someone > to explain > >how , , can have vendor dependent > >, , etc. within this model. > Costin Manolache said we should make a separate proposal for roles, > including the possibility of defining roles as a normal task > which you can > directly include in build files. Before we do this, there > needs to be some > more discussion, because Costin says he would prefer that every class > implementing a particular interface be automatically usable in the > corresponding role. Or we need to organize one or several votes. > OK, lets do it that way. > > > >> I am quoting Peter Reilly here : > >> > >> This patch adds 4 new features (the code is interrelated, > >> but may be split). > >> * adapter attribute added to typedef > >> * add(Type) method added to introspection rules > >> * typedef can read an xml defintion file > >> * namespace support for xml defintions (antlib:) > >> So one can do > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> where the class path contains the org/acme/anttasks/antlib.xml > >> and the antlib.xml file contains: > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >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. > > I do not think that having to use a prefix to indicate tasks > or types coming > from a particular antlib is a huge constraint. > In JSP, if you use taglibs you have to use prefixes to indicate the > particular taglib you are using, such as > Also, I am not sure whether the use of the prefix is required > or not. (Peter > ?) > So, will ANT core be special and allow being called without prefix. And can my library be special too and being allowed to be called without a prefix? How about the optional tasks of ANT? I really would like that ANTCore or not ANTCore all tasks and elements are treated the same way and under the same priviledges. > >I do not see an task specified in the project, does that > >means that I need to put all the jars in the classpath of ANT? > > I hope that is not a requirement. I think users need to be > >able to specify the classpath they want to use for their > >libraries just like they do for . > > There is an antlib task in the project. > The text said: So one can do I see no task in this it seem to automagically find the library based on the xmlns declaration. Hence my comment. Jose Alberto