On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > is it currently possible to use a type as its own class if > available, then adapt if possible instead?
I'm not sure I follow you here. My guess is that the answer is no, could be yes, though. 8-) > One of the first things I had considered this might imply, and > perhaps fairly convenient to implement, is pluggable FileUtils > implementations. Since a FileUtils object is obtained by a static > call, this might not be too bad. Does anyone have any ideas on > nice, clean ways an antlib might plug into something like this? Depends on how you want to go with it. It sounds as if you wanted the antlib to influence all other tasks, even those belonging to a different antlib, this sounds dangerous. > Or, an antlib could register its own tasks to override the default > tasks (is that possible today?). You can replace tasks with your own, yes. I'm not sure whether you can do so for any namespace, but at least for the core namespace you can. commons-vfs > already done it, but it also becomes a dependency, > most likely, and a sandbox dependency at that... and to top it, one where development seems to have stopped right now. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
