ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: String -> Ressource
Date Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:46:02 GMT
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Matt Benson <> wrote:
> --- Stefan Bodewig <> wrote:

>> I guess we'd need something dynamic, i.e. there has to be a way to
>> register a ressource prefix with RU so that I can have string
>> representations for my own ressource types.
> I had assumed we could specify things in such a way as
> to specify the resource type simply by its typedef,

For some reason I never made that connection, even though it is
obvious.  That's why I didn't see a conflict with XML namespaces

> but I suppose a shortcoming of doing it this way is
> that for types from antlibs they must be explicitly
> typedef'd or have their ns mapped.  Well, I suppose
> e.g.
> wouldn't be the end of the world,

I don't think it would be too much to simply require ressources to be
typedef'ed if you want to use the String -> Ressource magic.

>> For BC we'd have to keep the File-argument setters anyway.  IH
>> could be changed to use setSrc(Ressource) in favor of setSrc(File)
>> and use the later if no ressource mapping was found.  No real need
>> to have a default in RU.  OTOH it might be convenient for users
>> when they can simply omit the "file?" prefix for files.
> That'd be quite a bit of IH modification to make it
> preserve > 1 type for a given property.

Not that bad.  IH already favor setters for anything that's not a
string over a plain String setter.  But IH already is a pretty complex
beast ...

> I can't decide what would be the best all-around solution, but it
> does seem that if we overloaded the same property setters with File
> and Resource, it might be easiest overall to add explicit code that
> setSrc(File) won't override setSrc(Resource) in IH (maybe no type
> can override a Resource),

would be easy, similar code already exists in IH.

> then default to FileResources as planned.


>> > However I'm not sure what the RIGHT "trigger character" is and
>> > IMO this is the only outstanding question stopping us from adding
>> > this feature to Ant.
>> bikeshedding? 8-)
> I get those little allegories mixed up.  Is that the
> one where we can blab back and forth forever, but
> ultimately whoever is doing the work can make the
> choice?

Not really.  It means we might be spending too much energy on
discussing minor details (the color of the bike shed) while there are
bigger problems to tackle.


Even though you sounded as if the choice of character was the only
thing that prevented us from implementing the feature, I was not
accusing anybody of wasting our time.  I was joking.

> Actually, globmapper doesn't seem to support ?.  ;) 

Ack, I should have known that.  The regexp mapper does, though ;-)

>> OK, what is left?  "#", "="?  Or
>> "url("?
> I kind of liked the parentheses thing when I saw it...
> I wonder if it looks too much like a method call.

parens might look strange when use in a regexp mapper, curly braces
might be better and they don't even look like a method call.


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

View raw message