> From: Martijn Kruithof [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ><snip with namespaces> > >Martijn, Matt, the example above would be necessary if and only > >if <resourcecollection> only had a add(ResourceSelector). In > >practice, we'll likely have specialized addAnd(ResourceSelector) and co > >so that if can be written just: > > > > > > <snip without namespaces> > > But wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of the <fill in role-type > here> I thought the whole point was avoiding having addConcrete in > favour of having add(Role).
'guess so. I'm just worried than forcing to use XML namespaces even for a built-in Ant type would generate some push-back... And to avoid using XML NS, we'd have to come up with a mechanism that puts in scope only names for the roles accepted by the current class/instance, which will also get push back it looks like. Which is why I was proposing to have both add(Type) and specialized addXyz(Type) in Ant itself, while I could use just add(Type) and XML NS on my end ;-) I guess I was kind of ignoring the burden that puts on the implementer in Ant itself... --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
