Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 21 May 2003, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've seen that Costin and Conor prefer that antlibs specify their
URI themselves. Could anybody please explain why
OK, let me try to summarize your answers:
Peter says - letting the user chose the URI may
Sounds great.
- Original Message -
From: peter reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ant Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: antlib / proposal of Peter Reilly
On Saturday 17 May 2003 19:59, Costin Manolache wrote:
My main concern is the same
On Thursday 22 May 2003 10:29, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2003, peter reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok I will chop it up into a sequence of patches.
Thanks.
The first patch adds the add(Type) introspection method and
implements this in condition, filterchain, tokenfilter,
On Mon, 19 May 2003, peter reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) are build script authors allowed to specify arbitary
URIs for ant type definitions?
I do not think this is a good idea.
I've seen that Costin and Conor prefer that antlibs specify their URI
themselves. Could anybody please
On Wednesday 21 May 2003 08:21, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2003, peter reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) are build script authors allowed to specify arbitary
URIs for ant type definitions?
I do not think this is a good idea.
I've seen that Costin and Conor prefer that
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2003, peter reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) are build script authors allowed to specify arbitary
URIs for ant type definitions?
I do not think this is a good idea.
I've seen that Costin and Conor prefer that antlibs specify their URI
Costin Manolache wrote:
That's consistent with most of the current uses of XML namespaces - you
don't see users picking their favorite XHTML or XSLT namespace URI.
To elaborate on this: the original intention of namespaces
was to provide universal names for elements. This means
a:section
peter reilly wrote:
There are a number of issues here.
1) are build script authors allowed to specify arbitary
URIs for ant type definitions?
I do not think this is a good idea.
I agree - I also preffer URIs that are interpreted in a certain way (
package names ), however we could
Hi Costin,
I will reply to these e-mails separately, if this is ok.
On Saturday 17 May 2003 19:59, Costin Manolache wrote:
Sorry for the late reply, I had almost no acces to internet ( or time )
last week.
My main concern is the same as Conor's - having this decoupled and done
in few steps.
On Saturday 17 May 2003 20:13, Costin Manolache wrote:
peter reilly wrote:
for example:
typedef resource=org/acme/mydefinitions.xml classpath=classes/
to allow loading of tasks/types from different 3rd party with some tasks
haveing the same name, I have added a prefix attribute.
From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Saturday 17 May 2003 19:59, Costin Manolache wrote:
I think taskdef should be treated as a special typedef
with TaskAdapter
as adapter.
( i.e. use typedef as the main definition mechanism, and
taskdef as
a shortcut for types with
On Saturday 17 May 2003 20:16, Costin Manolache wrote:
Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote:
I am having a look at
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19897
This proposal seems to address most of the points discussed in this
mailing list concerning the antlib thread of discussion.
On Monday 19 May 2003 11:50, Wannheden, Knut wrote:
Peter,
acme:hellp xmlns:acme=NSURI
This would allow arbitrary NSURIs ( for people who like
meaning-free URIs)
and allow the classpath association.
I do not want meaning-free URIs.
I want ant to ignore URIs that it
From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 19 May 2003 11:50, Wannheden, Knut wrote:
I don't quite see why it would be impossible to have
meaning-free URIs.
Nothing is impossible..., but it is difficult to have
meaning-free URIs and to
support (as in ignore) other
Yikes!!
There are a number of issues here.
1) are build script authors allowed to specify arbitary
URIs for ant type definitions?
I do not think this is a good idea.
2) what should ant do with URIs that it does not recognize?
a) use current method - unknown elements
b) ignore
Sorry for the late reply, I had almost no acces to internet ( or time )
last week.
My main concern is the same as Conor's - having this decoupled and done
in few steps.
peter reilly wrote:
On Thursday 15 May 2003 07:56, Conor MacNeill wrote:
I would prefer to use the XML schema attribute
peter reilly wrote:
for example:
typedef resource=org/acme/mydefinitions.xml classpath=classes/
to allow loading of tasks/types from different 3rd party with some tasks
haveing the same name, I have added a prefix attribute.
taskdef resource=net/sf/antcontrib/antcontrib.properties
Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote:
I am having a look at
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19897
This proposal seems to address most of the points discussed in this
mailing list concerning the antlib thread of discussion.
I was thinking maybe we do not need to look further and
On Thu, 15 May 2003 12:56 am, peter reilly wrote:
I have merged the ant-type code into my antlib code.
However it uses a magic attribute name ant-type to
achieve the effect and not as discussed before - the
namesspaced attribute name like - ant:type.
I can easily do a name-spaced attribute
On Thursday 15 May 2003 07:56, Conor MacNeill wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2003 12:56 am, peter reilly wrote:
I have merged the ant-type code into my antlib code.
However it uses a magic attribute name ant-type to
achieve the effect and not as discussed before - the
namesspaced attribute name
This is true, but difficult to do. Some of the implementations of the
different features change/improve if other features are present. For
example the implementation of onerror uses the new anttypedefintion
class. The implementation of the psuedo task antlib uses the add(Type)
mechanism rather
I am having a look at http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19897
This proposal seems to address most of the points discussed in this mailing
list concerning the antlib thread of discussion.
I was thinking maybe we do not need to look further and we could commit this
contribution ?
From: Antoine Levy-Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am having a look at
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19897
This proposal seems to address most of the points discussed
in this mailing list concerning the antlib thread of discussion.
I was thinking maybe we do
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Jose Alberto Fernandez
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like for someone to explain how ejbjar, jspc,
serverdeploy can have vendor dependent weblogic, jboss,
etc. within this model.
Assume you have a weblogic antlib that contains them - and you use the
namespace weblogic
On Wednesday 14 May 2003 08:50, Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote:
I am having a look at
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19897
This proposal seems to address most of the points discussed in this mailing
list concerning the antlib thread of discussion.
I was thinking maybe we do
On Wednesday 14 May 2003 10:49, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
From: Antoine Levy-Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am having a look at
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19897
This proposal seems to address most of the points discussed
in this mailing list concerning
On Wed, 14 May 2003 07:49 pm, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
Well I have not given the fight on the need for roles and separate
symbol-tables for different Types.
Well, I explained what I disliked about your roles proposal a long time ago
:-).
On Wednesday 14 May 2003 13:23, Conor MacNeill wrote:
ant-type polymorphism is not a priority for me,
Pity - it solves most extensibility problems :-).
Hi Conor, et al
I have merged the ant-type code into my antlib code.
However it uses a magic attribute name ant-type to
achieve the effect
28 matches
Mail list logo
