Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 38937 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jun 2001 07:48:49 -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 38779 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2001 07:48:40 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010605175336.00815d90@mail.alphalink.com.au> X-Sender: gdonald@mail.alphalink.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 17:53:36 +1000 To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org From: Peter Donald Subject: Re: Scope of Types Cc: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010602020600.008a99c0@mail.alphalink.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N At 09:36 AM 6/5/01 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >Peter Donald wrote: > >> Can anyone give a good usecase forsharing type defs between peer >> projects? > >Your counterargument is sharing values via the ${} syntax doesn't >require sharing types - but what if you want to share IDs? whats the difference between IDs and property values? >Say project A defines a type mailaddressset - a set of email addresses >to use in the to field of a custom mailreport task. In project A we >have > > >
>
> > > > > > > > >And now in project B I want to do something like > > > >
> > > >as I know Pete is not going to be interested in the reports I generate >when running it from project B. In that case it is better to redefine mailaddressset in project B aswell. Much like if you refer to type URL in a java source file you import it in the source file. You do not say the type by name of URL imported in source file X where X is another sourcefile. 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 | *-----------------------------------------------------*