>> >I am thinking of adding:
>> >
>> > <project xmlns:ac="antlib:net.sf.antcontrib">
>> > <typedef antlib="antlib:net.sf.antcontrib"
>> > classpath="${PATH_TO_ANTCONTRIB.JAR}"/>
>> >
>> >which would be equilivent to
>> > <typedef uri="antlib:net.sf.antcontrib"
>> > resource="net/sf/antcontrib/antlib.xml"
>> > classpath="${PATH_TO_ANTCONTRIB.JAR}"/>
>>
>>
>> Would it be easier to have
>>
>> <typedef
>> antlib="net.sf.antcontrib" no need for antlib: protocoll as
its the only
>> xmlns="ac" no need for name-equality between
<project xmlns> and <typedef>
>> resource+uri together with xmlns: if you dont
use antlib+xmlns attribute
>> classpath as before (also support of nested
<resources>?)
>> />
>
>I would rather use the same value as the xmlns binding
>attribute, i.e. the XML namespace that the antlib is placed in.
Ok with me
>The idea of antlibs is to use standard XML namespaces to
>handle namespace issues of having multiple antlibs.
Nothing against that. But the problem is to specify where to load the
classes from.
Thats why you have to have a <typedef classpath/> if the jar isnt on
Ants locations.
Im not a friend of writing long strings equal to multiple places ....
What about
<project xmlns:ac="...">
<typedef xmlns="ac" ...> xmlns instead of your antlib
attribute.
Jan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
