> First, the proprietary method, not using any special xml
> features... the way Ant decided not to go. To demonstrate
> using the above example:
>
>
>
>
> Pros:
> * Concise
> * Single definition of namespace
> * No confusing uris, with no purpose other than as a name
> Cons:
> * Not val
> First cut of the page is up at
> http://nant.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/NamespaceDesign
>
> It currently doesn't have anything other than other than
> what's already been in email. And possibly not even that.
This has now been updated with the suggested designs and a brief
evaluation of
> Rather than continuing this discussion (in particular, compare &
> contrast) on this list, is it worth creating a page for the
> requirements/semantics of namespace support to the nant wiki pages?
First cut of the page is up at
http://nant.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/NamespaceDesign
It curr
Hi,
* Troy Laurin wrote on 13.07.2004 (15:57):
> Defining namespace in the class defining the task is an interesting idea
> and a possible solution... it's worth comparing this with the other
> viable solutions to see what's the best solution, both in terms of
> functionality as well as correctness
> -Original Message-
> From: Gert Driesen
>
> I definitely agree with you here ... But I'm also convinced
> that this is not something we can/should implement right now.
> Our focus right now is to get a stable NAnt 0.85 released.
> It would ofcourse be interesting if someone could wr
Hi,
* Troy Laurin wrote on 13.07.2004 (10:17):
> Are you suggesting using the namespace for the class implementing the
> task, when referencing the task in the build file? This seems like it
> could be excessively verbose, to me.
Well, I always use a short namespace. So I actually don't
thought t
> - Original Message -
> From: "Troy Laurin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Nant-Developers (E-Mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 4:17 AM
> Subject: RE: [nant-dev] NAnt & Namespaces
>
>
>
> > -Or
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Sascha Andres
>
> But don't we already have a possibility to decide what task
> is used? My personal version task uses my namespace. So why
> don't we give a task the complete name : namespace
Hi,
* Jaroslaw Kowalski wrote on 11.07.2004 (20:03):
> My vote: let's NOT support it - I'd say more - let's disallow it. Simplicity
> is an important thing.
Let me propose a compromise, and let me tell you why:
I like NAnt - one reason is, that after a short phase of
learning, everyone is able to
My vote: let's NOT support it - I'd say more - let's disallow it. Simplicity
is an important thing.
The only advantage of XML namespaces I see is technical beauty and XSD
schema support for extensible intellisense - IMHO it's not worth it.
>From my experience I can say that it's really difficult
10 matches
Mail list logo
