ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <j_a_fernan...@yahoo.com>
Subject RE: [DISC] Aspect Representation was [DISC] Aspect implementation
Date Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:16:30 GMT
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
>
> Conor MacNeill <conor@cortexebusiness.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Now when I dealt with that in mutant, I wondered whether we should
> > continue to support that or only allow data type values to be
> > defined at the top (task level), if you know what I mean.
>
> +1 on not supporting the id aspect on data types nested into tasks.
>

Before we make any decision, can we do everything we want to do with types
outside takss? In your other message you had a type id being declared inside
a projectref. Which I think is the right thing to do. HOw about passing type
values in <ant*> calls?

The problem I see today is this diferentiation between types using ID
aspects and normal properties using name. At the usage level the visibility
rules for both should be the same. Shouldn't <property name="X".../> be
syntax sugar for <property ant:id="X".../>.
We already decided to consolidate the namespaces. I think we should
consolidate also how they handle the namespace. This would also mean the
precedence rules that apply to <properties> must apply to ids also. Is that
the case today?

An orthogonal question, why is it ID an aspect but REFID is not? Shouldn't
they represent the two sides of the same coin?

Jose Alberto



Mime
View raw message