ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject RE: [DISC] details of task library concept
Date Wed, 23 May 2001 09:01:03 GMT
At 10:38 AM 5/23/01 +0200, Siberski, Wolf wrote:
>Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> Wolf Siberski <> wrote:
>> > IMHO the task library writer should determine the name
>> > of its namespace, not the build file writer,
>> I have to disagree here.  What can I as a build file writer do if the
>> developers of two task libraries I want to use have chosen the same
>> prefix?  The build file writer would at least need a chance to
>> override this decision.
>The same argument would apply to Java classes, and no one
>has yet requested the ability to override package names. 

I partially agree ... but thats mainly because of import statements in java
make classes usable. So where it is possible to have java classes named

you can choose to import only one and use short form (Main) in .java files.
This is the same way that occurs in xml files ... the URI (ie associated with each namespace is
fully qualified name while the prefix (ie ant:) is equivelent to short form
of java names.

Perhaps a compromise would be that the prefix defaults to library specified
name unless overidden by user (this matches behaviour in certain scripting
languages aswell). So in most cases javac will be 

<jdk:javac .../>

while you could import it into default namespace and use

<javac .../>

or into alternate namespace if some future jdk tasks act differently




| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |

View raw message