ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dominique Devienne" <>
Subject Re: Location in non-Task tasks
Date Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:29:17 GMT
> >> However, it is a pity that AssetTask has to extend
> >> ConditionBase ... oh well.
> >
> > It doesn't "have to", does it? All it needs is an add(Condition)
> > method, no?
> No.  Most of the "old" conditions are not <typedef>ed and so don't
> have a "name" of their own, you can't add them to a task that only has
> add(Condition).

What is preventing us from declaring them? OK, typedef'ing them would
probably create some havoc and name conflict.

Now that we have add(Type) introspection (what I also call extension
points), we should *really* get away from being forced to derive from
ConditionBase or similar base classes. I see two ways to allow this:

1) Have an Ant-conditions antlib, and force users of AntUnit to
explicit load it, with or without using an XML namespace. I'd be fine
with this myself.

2) Introduce a <tagdef> or <roledef> for the purpose of locating
extension points as nested elements. They differ from <typedef>s in
that they don't allow to declare these 'tags' at the top-level, but
only as nested-elements of another type or task.

What do you think? --DD

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

View raw message