Wannheden, Knut wrote: >> > <project xmlns="antlib:org.apache.ant.core"> >> > <.../> >> > </project> >> > >> > The only difference would be that <project/> would declare >> the default >> > namespace. >> >> The only difference is that people will have more to type and >> the build >> file will get more complicated. >> > > I can't deny that. But the impact is neglible IMHO.
Sorry - I disagree on that, and your mail provides a good reason why. Ant should remain as simple as possible - at least for simple use cases. Supporting advanced uses is important, but it shouldn't affect too much the simple case. I don't think we should add xmlns to the simple use case. >> Are you trying to give one example of why adding complexity >> is bad, and >> why we should avoid using namespaces ?? >> > > If XML namespaces should be used at all, I think they should come with as > few surprises as possible. Consider the case where a user has defined an > antlib foo with a <fileset/> type. What behaviour should be expected from > the following example? > > <path> > <foo:fileset dir="." xmlns:foo="antlib:com.foo"/> > </path> > > Won't the user be surprised if the regular Ant <fileset/> is used without > any notice whatsoever? I just thought the introduction of XML namespaces > would address such issues... The surprise would be why would a user (ab)use xmlns in such a construct :-) It is certainly possible to introduce the ns in the introspection helper - I personally don't see it as a big priority. There are many ways a user can hurt themself - if they really want. If anyone wants to fix introspection helper to be ns aware - I'm +0. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
