ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Conor MacNeill" <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>
Subject RE: TASTE QUESTION: optional description attribute for ant projects?
Date Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:25:14 GMT
Peter,

> From: Peter Donald [mailto:donaldp@apache.org]
> At 11:40  11/4/01 +1000, Conor MacNeill wrote:
> >
> >In general I prefer to be explicit. Why overload a comment with another
> >function when we can have an element to contain the text. Javadoc doesn't
> >really do that since it uses a special comment delimiter. Anyway, such an
> >element is no more a magic element than <target> and <property>
> are now. Is
> >there a reason why we want to avoid new elements under project?
>
> hundreds of good reasons ;)
>
> However more importantly is the fact that we will eventually want to doc
> targets or tasks etc.

Agreed. I think, however, that we should be using XML by allowing a <doc> or
<description> sub-elements to each of these elements (project and target,
maybe tasks). Whether the content of that element has any structure (@link,
etc) is, for me, a separate issue.

> It would be better if there was a consistent doccing
> standard.

Agreed - I just don't think we should use XML comments for that.

> To achieve this you can easily and transparently use comments or
> alternatively use magic element names throughout the build.xml.

Again, I see nothing magical about these elements - we are just giving some
more structure to the build file - defining its content model, if you like.
What is the advantage of making this "transparent"?

> (Or wait
> till an2 and use namespaces).

Conor


Mime
View raw message