ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <dona...@apache.org>
Subject RE: Scope of Types
Date Fri, 01 Jun 2001 16:06:00 GMT
At 11:44 AM 6/1/01 +0100, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
>> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
>>
>> > Flat is theoretically the best example because all definitions are
>> > local.  However I guess I am worried about usability.
>>
>> What if you'd allow to import types from a nested namespace into the
>> default namespace? Something that is what you call flat with a little
>> bit of global added to it?
>>
>
>We could have something like:
>
>	<projectref name="mod" ... />
>	<taskdef name="blah" aliasfor="mod->foobar" />
>or
>	<import name="libblah" lib="mod->modlib" />
>
>I do not think we can just use them without redeclaration, unless we use a
>different namespace operator:
>
>	<mod->foobar  ..... />  <!-- This is illegal syntax -->
>	<mod:foobar .... />     <!-- I think this is fine XML -->
>
>comments?

Personally I get kinda scared when there is talk of sharing type defs
between projects in this manner. Where do you see it as useful? I can see
it as useful when propogated via antcalls (ie subordinate/child projects)
but become concerned when peer projects (via projectref) are using it. 

Personally I would prefer namespace resolution for types (and aspects) to
be static "type" information rather than dynamic "instance" information. So
namespace of type would refer to the library it was exported from (or a
user assigned value).

Can anyone give a good usecase forsharing type defs between peer projects?

Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "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               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*


Mime
View raw message