ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From peter reilly <peter.rei...@corvil.com>
Subject Re: antlib / proposal of Peter Reilly
Date Wed, 21 May 2003 08:04:12 GMT
On Wednesday 21 May 2003 08:21, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2003, peter reilly <peter.reilly@corvil.com> wrote:
> > 1) are build script authors allowed to specify arbitary
> >     URIs for ant type definitions?
> >     I do not think this is a good idea.
>
> I've seen that Costin and Conor prefer that antlibs specify their URI
> themselves.  Could anybody please explain why - and at the same time
> please also explain why user choice would be bad here?  I feel I must
> be missing something.

I do not mind user choice, but I am concerned that allowing
arbitary uris will restrict future devl. of ant. Because future
interpretation of uris by ant may break build files that use
those uris.

>
> > 2) what should ant do with URIs that it does not recognize?
> >
> >     a) use current method - unknown elements
> >     b) ignore them
> >     c) explicty say that the ns uri is not supported
> >     d) convert them to Text in task/typedefs (the suggestion below)
>
> I'm on the fence between a) and b) and wouldn't like either c or d too
> much.

My code has ProjectHelper2 doing b) (ignoring them) but
this could also be done by UnknownElement.

Peter.


Mime
View raw message