ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Fuller" <>
Subject Re: Adding magic properties for targets?
Date Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:33:45 GMT
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Steve Loughran <> wrote:
> No, QNames are (a) evil (b) not part of XML; they ar part of the W3C XML
> Schema.

hehe, this was exactly the response I predicted.

ok, I will play along .....

>  I've just noticed the that Open Grid Forum's Open Grid Services
> Architecture mailing list has just discovered that very fact only weeks
> before their WS-ResourceFramework Basic Profile 1.0 was about to be
> announced (I'm on some very obscure mailing lists)...I think I pointed that
> out to them years back.

the suggested;


works for me, but inevitably there will be someone who will want to
use ant. and overload the prefix, etc... so u could either make
something up or reuse something in existence.

so I think the decision is one of scope; fine for Ant to choose to do
something tactical, though strategically it may make more sense to
build in XML namespaces and qnames.

> Here's the basic problem, and it exists in XPath too: you cannot evaluate
> the prefix to namespace URI mapping without building and maintaining the
> entire context of namespace declarations. And you get a new error type
> -unknown prefix- that is not needed. That is, it would be better to pass
> around things like

I have been reading this permathread for nearly a decade, I probably
have argued on both sides of it ... with you, got the t-shirt ;)

> See? QNames are evil.

I would state that it is hard to completely bound any construction in
any computing language ... there are plenty of technologies with a
frightening degree of ambiguity that thrive and I think when the
principle of 'least surprise', 'least evil' and common sense is
applied then these ambiguities can be navigated around... there are
plenty of other XML technologies that use qname and XML namespaces
that are fine and I am sure that Ant would be fine as well.

> I had lunch with the W3C TAG last week, primarily to give them a hard time
> over releasing WS-Addressing without a single test case(*). I guess I should
> have raised QNames at the same time.

test cases are good ... if u mean not a single test case with qnames
... I am admittedly lost, I must confess to ignoring most of what XML
Schema or any WS-anything espouses.

back to the point; perhaps I am unaware of the costs of implementing
qnames in current Ant ... it might be quite high and you being
intimately aware of these costs might be conflating the argument and
deciding the benefits are not worth the effort.

as a thought experiment, I wonder what benefits there would be
(keeping in mind that we would avoid the nuclear scenario you outline
with qnames) to implementing qnames in property names (perhaps all
names) in Ant?

now that I am in a wondering mood ... what is the verdict with Ant
libraries and its usage of XML namespaces ... was this considered a
good thing ?

cheers, Jim Fuller

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

View raw message