Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 7711 invoked by uid 500); 23 May 2001 10:45:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 7455 invoked from network); 23 May 2001 10:45:33 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: bodewig.bost.de: bodewig set sender to bodewig@apache.org using -f To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISC] details of task library concept References: From: Stefan Bodewig Date: 23 May 2001 12:45:32 +0200 In-Reply-To: "Siberski, Wolf"'s message of "Wed, 23 May 2001 10:38:45 +0200" Message-ID: Lines: 22 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N Wolf Siberski 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. Well, I've been thinking of a prefix like jdk: or ejb: - if we make that org.apache.ant.jdk: I doubt there'll be any conflicts - but who wants to read/write a build file then? Stefan