ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Conor MacNeill" <co...@m64.com>
Subject RE: Ant2 and properties
Date Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:30:33 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Donald [mailto:donaldp@apache.org]
> >
> >I'm not sure it has been decided to unify properties as they are in
> >1.x with references to something new (properties 2.x) but I can't
> >remember anybody arguing against it.
>
> Okay - I was thinking that something like this would be
> useful to unify all
> the different data-types.
>
> <property name="foo">
>   <mydata-type attr="1">
>   ...blah...
>   </mydata-type>
> </property>
>

I certainly support unifying properties and the other datatypes. I had
originally just seen this as making property a string datatype, using
the same namespace and passing to subprojects, etc. What you are
suggesting above is a little different. With the above we would probably
have an explicit string datatype.

<property name="foo">
   <string value="hello"/>
</property>

A little verbose at first glance, compared with the current usage. In
any case, we are also going to need to decide the future of the ${}
syntax (too late to change it, IMHO) and what it would mean for
non-string properties (equivalent to toString() method, perhaps)

> The different types that could be created would be
> dynamically registered
> at runtime. So if if some-one wanted the BlimBlamBlah data
> type to be added
> that they could implement an interface and register it
> through a property
> file. They could then declare and use it just like
> filesets/patternsets etc

Shouldn't be difficult.


>
> This kinda functionality would be useful for certain
> specialized areas.

Can you elaborate?

Conor


Mime
View raw message