> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >I'm not sure it has been decided to unify properties as they are in
> >1.x with references to something new (properties 2.x) but I can't
> >remember anybody arguing against it.
>
> Okay - I was thinking that something like this would be
> useful to unify all
> the different data-types.
>
> <property name="foo">
> <mydata-type attr="1">
> ...blah...
> </mydata-type>
> </property>
>
I certainly support unifying properties and the other datatypes. I had
originally just seen this as making property a string datatype, using
the same namespace and passing to subprojects, etc. What you are
suggesting above is a little different. With the above we would probably
have an explicit string datatype.
<property name="foo">
<string value="hello"/>
</property>
A little verbose at first glance, compared with the current usage. In
any case, we are also going to need to decide the future of the ${}
syntax (too late to change it, IMHO) and what it would mean for
non-string properties (equivalent to toString() method, perhaps)
> The different types that could be created would be
> dynamically registered
> at runtime. So if if some-one wanted the BlimBlamBlah data
> type to be added
> that they could implement an interface and register it
> through a property
> file. They could then declare and use it just like
> filesets/patternsets etc
Shouldn't be difficult.
>
> This kinda functionality would be useful for certain
> specialized areas.
Can you elaborate?
Conor
