Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010605203904.0082f100@mail.alphalink.com.au>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:39:04 +1000
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
From: Peter Donald <donaldp@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Scope of Types
Cc: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <m3itibwadl.fsf@bodewig.bost.de>
References: <m3r8x4ld25.fsf@bodewig.bost.de>
 <3.0.6.32.20010602020600.008a99c0@mail.alphalink.com.au>
 <3.0.6.32.20010605175336.00815d90@mail.alphalink.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 11:20 AM 6/5/01 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>Peter Donald <donaldp@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> At 09:36 AM 6/5/01 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>>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?
>
>Using something via refid implies a typed value, using ${} does not -
>especially if the defining project doesn't know the type project B
>will be using.

okay - in that case I would just treat it as a normal proeprty and if it
can not be resolved (and possibly converted) to be of correct type then it
throws a TaskException. Thoughtts?

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               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*