ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Costin Manolache <>
Subject RE: Antlib... when?
Date Mon, 06 Jan 2003 19:03:38 GMT
Wannheden, Knut wrote:

>> > <project xmlns="antlib:org.apache.ant.core">
>> >  <.../>
>> > </project>
>> > 
>> > The only difference would be that <project/> would declare
>> the default
>> > namespace.
>> The only difference is that people will have more to type and
>> the build
>> file will get more complicated.
> I can't deny that.  But the impact is neglible IMHO.

Sorry - I disagree on that, and your mail provides a good reason why.

Ant should remain as simple as possible - at least for simple use 
cases. Supporting advanced uses is important, but it shouldn't affect
too much the simple case. I don't think we should add xmlns to the
simple use case.

>> Are you trying to give one example of why adding complexity
>> is bad, and
>> why we should avoid using namespaces ??
> If XML namespaces should be used at all, I think they should come with as
> few surprises as possible.  Consider the case where a user has defined an
> antlib foo with a <fileset/> type.  What behaviour should be expected from
> the following example?
>   <path>
>     <foo:fileset dir="." xmlns:foo=""/>
>   </path>
> Won't the user be surprised if the regular Ant <fileset/> is used without
> any notice whatsoever?  I just thought the introduction of XML namespaces
> would address such issues...

The surprise would be why would a user (ab)use xmlns in such a construct :-)

It is certainly possible to introduce the ns in the introspection helper - 
I personally don't see it as a big priority. There are many ways a user can
hurt themself - if they really want. 

If anyone wants to fix introspection helper to be ns aware - I'm +0.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message