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 21:40:22 GMT
> From: Martijn Kruithof []
> ><snip with namespaces>
> >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
> >so that if can be written just:
> >
> >
>  > <snip without namespaces>
> But wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of the <fill in role-type
> here> I thought the whole point was avoiding having addConcrete in
> favour of having add(Role).

'guess so. I'm just worried than forcing to use XML namespaces
even for a built-in Ant type would generate some push-back...

And to avoid using XML NS, we'd have to come up with a mechanism
that puts in scope only names for the roles accepted by the current
class/instance, which will also get push back it looks like.

Which is why I was proposing to have both add(Type) and specialized
addXyz(Type) in Ant itself, while I could use just add(Type) and
XML NS on my end ;-) I guess I was kind of ignoring the burden that
puts on the implementer in Ant itself... --DD

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

View raw message