Hi,
A while ago I was discussing DataTypes and how we should implement them.
There was little support for a generic system like
<set-property name="foo">
<fileset ... />
</set-property>
but instead it was indicated that we would instead create a separate task
for each data-type so it works something like
<fileset name="foo" ... />
or using aspects
<fileset ant:id="foo" ... />
This task would be repeated for all diferent datatypes (ie
fileset/patternset/file/pattern/filter/filterset/etc).
Now because the runtime will most likely differentiate between DataTypes
and the tasks used to set the DataTypes I was wondering whether it would be
useful to have a separate marker interface to indicate DataTypes?
ie.
class Pattern implements DataType {}
interface ItemSet extends DataType {}
class FileSet implements ItemSet {}
class FilterSet implements ItemSet {}
class PatternSet implements ItemSet {}
etc.
It would be useful in that we could use registry to instantiate DataTypes
if it did inherit/implement from a particular interface. Thoughts?
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 |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
