ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jose Alberto Fernandez <JFernan...@viquity.com>
Subject RE: Ant2 and properties
Date Mon, 04 Dec 2000 20:13:33 GMT
> From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:conor@m64.com]
> 
> 
> 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>
> 

Now, now, lets not go the same route on <rename> and push for only one way
to do anything.
Althugh I see your notation as necessary for completion. We still can keep
the regular property notation as a form of shortcuts.

> 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)
> 

I see no major problem with ${} since the only reasonable definition,
IMHO, is toString(). What I think is a larger problem is what to do about
refid references. I think they would have to look in the "property name"
space
as well as the "id" space. Someone mentioned the "id" space has to be local
to the project by definition of the ID semantic in XML. However, I think
we still can interprete refids in whichever way we want since that is our
own thing.

Jose Alberto
 

Mime
View raw message