On Friday 15 August 2003 12:06, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This does not work for the new types of definitions (macrodef,
> > presetdef, and scriptdef), so I am thinking of changing this to
> > always do the warning (unless they are the
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This does not work for the new types of definitions (macrodef,
> presetdef, and scriptdef), so I am thinking of changing this to
> always do the warning (unless they are the same definition as
> reported by the AntTypeDefinition).
A s
On Friday 15 August 2003 05:36, Costin Manolache wrote:
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> All this overriding may create some bad maintaince problems.
> >
> > I agree for overriding in arbitrary namespaces, but we have to keep
> > supp
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree we should keep overriding for the default namespace, for
> backward compat. But I don't think it is a good idea to support
> overriding in any other case, and the default namespace should have
> a strong warning that namesp
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> All this overriding may create some bad maintaince problems.
>
> I agree for overriding in arbitrary namespaces, but we have to keep
> supporting it for the default namespace.
>
> We've added support f
On Thursday 14 August 2003 16:13, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Users are allowed to use antlib:*. The restricted uri's are uris
> > that users are not allowed to use in .
>
> Does that as a corrolary mean users can't override built-in task
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All this overriding may create some bad maintaince problems.
I agree for overriding in arbitrary namespaces, but we have to keep
supporting it for the default namespace.
We've added support for task overloading when Ant added a t
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Users are allowed to use antlib:*. The restricted uri's are uris
> that users are not allowed to use in .
Does that as a corrolary mean users can't override built-in tasks. It
seems a bit wierd to say you must not use uri="ant:*" and
On Thursday 14 August 2003 06:45, Costin Manolache wrote:
> peter reilly wrote:
> > On Tuesday 12 August 2003 13:24, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> >> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday 12 August 2003 12:36, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, pete
peter reilly wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 August 2003 13:24, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 12 August 2003 12:36, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >uri
On Tuesday 12 August 2003 13:24, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 12 August 2003 12:36, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> >> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>> >uri="antlib:net.sf.antcontrib"
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 August 2003 12:36, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >uri="antlib:net.sf.antcontrib"
>> >classpath="/tmp/ant-contrib.jar"/>
>>
>> wouldn't
On Tuesday 12 August 2003 12:36, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>uri="antlib:net.sf.antcontrib"
> >classpath="/tmp/ant-contrib.jar"/>
>
> wouldn't the resource attribute be redundant in that case?
Not in this case.
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> uri="antlib:net.sf.antcontrib"
>classpath="/tmp/ant-contrib.jar"/>
wouldn't the resource attribute be redundant in that case?
> 3) reserved uri's
+1 on reserving the ant* protocol.
> 5) antlibs in the class
On 12 Aug 2003, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
you've already answered my questions in your response to DD, sorry.
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTEC
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ant:core is ant's namespace and the default namespace for
> definitions.
does that include the optional tasks?
If you reserve the ant* URI space, does that mean it will be
impossible to add third party tasks to the default namespace o
Thanks Peter. It helps ;-) --DD
> -Original Message-
> From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 11:10 AM
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: [Patch] namespace and antlib
>
> Ok my explaination was not that great ;-)
>
&
7;s to be on Ant's classpath.
>
> --DD
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 7:30 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [Patch] namespace and antlib
> >
>
ECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 7:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Patch] namespace and antlib
>
> I have posted a patch for namespace support in
>
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19897
>
> It should cover most of the issues raised
>
I have posted a patch for namespace support in
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19897
It should cover most of the issues raised
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=10528987595&r=1&w=2
Arbitrary namespace uris are allowed, uris beginning with "ant" are
reserved.
ant:core is ant
20 matches
Mail list logo