ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dominique Devienne" <>
Subject RE: ResourceCollections
Date Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:14:18 GMT
> From: Martijn Kruithof []
> Is this te direction we are going with "roles":
> <project name="foo" default="bar"
>    xmlns:co="ant:condition"
>     xmlns:set="ant:resourceselector">
> <resourcecollection id="blah">
>     <set:and>
>         <set:files dir="foo" name="**/*.java"/>
>         <set:date select="newer" date="2005/04/15"/>
>     </set:and>
> </resourcecollection>
> </project>

Whao, I'm getting this email exchange out-of-order! Weird.

Martijn, Matt, the example above would be necessary if and only
if <resourcecollection> only had a add(ResourceSelector). In
practice, we'll likely have specialized addAnd(ResourceSelector) and co
so that if can be written just:

> <resourcecollection id="blah">
>     <and>
>         <files dir="foo" name="**/*.java"/>
>         <date select="newer" date="2005/04/15"/>
>     </and>
> </resourcecollection>

The NS prefix would be necessary only in 3rd party custom task that only
have a add(ResourceSelector) method and none of the specialized add
methods. And even then, the 3rd party can still decide to add the
specialized adds.

So really the need to NS prefix roles appears in specific cases only:
1) In build files where XML namespaces are used and 'welcome'.
2) When there's a possible ambiguity with another role, for example
   in a class with both a add(Condition) and a add(FileSelector).

I want to stress that we're not forcing everyone to use XML namespaces
if we create these role AntLibs. --DD

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

View raw message