> From: Matt Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > From: Matt Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --- Jose Alberto Fernandez > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > All this discussion about roles brings me back > > to > > > > the > > > > proposal/implementation > > > > of Roles that I made a long time ago and that > > was > > > > rejected. > > > > > After thinking about this further, this would be okay > for inline usage of duplicate names but is still > inferior to using Antlibs for scoping in that types > can stand alone at the project level (with id > normally) in the latter scheme, and referenced later. > A small distinction perhaps, but I like to be able to > declare things I intend to reuse at a high level > rather than naming them during their first use.
I agree with you in principle. However, I do not think every little bit of XML is a good candidate for id'ing. You may ID a <fileset> or a <resoursecollection> but a <mapper> on its own makes less sense since you usually need to look at its meaning in the context of the usage. You can always find a counterexample of course but as a general rule... To me name overloading makes sense for a very limited number of very much used things <and> as for a condition or a selector, is a good example. I am sure others can come with other cases. Forcing usage of namespaces is the same as forcing new different names for everything. In particular in core. Jose Alberto --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
