On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 20:13:20 +1100, Peter Donald wrote: >At 10:10 22/3/01 +0100, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >>> Each different concern (ie logging, failonerror, classloader, >>> documentation) could have a different namespace. >> >>One possibility - defined task context as David has suggested are >>another option. > >I think that they are both applicable. ie The task context serves as the >programatic interface for task writers but the different handlers (along >with converters) exist in the kernel and as the interface for "kernel >hackers" ;) >
Actually, I like the idea of embedding them in a context. It seems to keep the XML more consistent in terms of elements tying to things. Something like: <Context> <Logging level="debug" /> </Context> seems easier for the user to digest than namespaces. d
