Pete, It is an interesting problem. Whilst we may be able to restrict the use of project and target, there are a number of other nested elements which we will find it increasingly difficult to maintain restrictions. For example, say someone creates a task which takes a <javac> nested element. They really shouldn't be able to, because that is already used by the <javac> task.
Another scenario would be if someone wants to create a task which an existing task already uses as a nested element. For example, I added a <support> element to ejbjar recently. It should preclude the creation of a <support> task. Finally a lesser example, take the <tar> changes I recently made. I added nested <fileset> elements but I allowed those elements to take additional attributes. So, really an ant file is not guaranteed to be a valid xml file. Conversely if you generate a DTD, you may be able to create valid xml files which will not be valid ant files. I wonder how <antstructure> handles these situations. Thought? Conor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 12:06 AM Subject: Reserved XML tags? > Hi, > > before we release a final it would be good if we decided whether to allow > tasks/subelements with the name project and target. There is two issues > that I see > > 1. disallow such arrangements in the ant-dev maintained tasks > 2. disallow any-one implementing tasks this way (via magic element names > and/or exception throwing) > > Personally I am +1 on first and -1 on second. The reason I am -1 on second > is because it is a trait that will have to be followed in Ant2.x and I > don't see any significant advantage (I know it is easier for DTD users). > However I do see significant disadvantage if ant2.x is used/embedded into > other projects and also because it introduces more magic variables. > > Votes? > > Cheers, > > Pete > > *-----------------------------------------------------* > | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | > | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | > | everyone gets busy on the proof." | > | - John Kenneth Galbraith | > *-----------------------------------------------------* > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
