ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <jalbe...@cellectivity.com>
Subject RE: Roles (was: antlib)
Date Wed, 07 May 2003 22:46:03 GMT
> From: Costin Manolache [mailto:cmanolache@yahoo.com]
> 
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 06 May 2003, Costin Manolache <cmanolache@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> >> 
> >>> The important point is for the user (which is the one who has to
> >>> deal with name clashes) to have control of the final naming scheme
> >>> used in his/her buildfile.
> >>
> 
> If you're reffering to the prefix - of course, that's how NS works.
> 
> The URI however should be chosen by the antlib author ( maybe 
> based on some
> rules specific to ant ), and should serve as an ID of the library.
> 

Why? What has the URI to do with the classes or elements defined in the
antlib? You are impossing an arbitrary tie to a uri namespace
that has no real meaning whatsoever, since the meaning is on the classes
themselves.

> My proposal is to use the (main) package name. There are 
> other options - 
> but I don't think every end user using it's own name for an 
> antlib is a good
> one. 
> 

What I suggest is to let the user of the antlib define whatever URI
it wants to whatever antlib it wants and it that way giving him
control of which libraries s/he wants to use toguether on the same
namespace. The antlib will just load the definitions there
and that's it. There is no reason to force people to use different
spaces or to enforce rules to administer diferent spaces.

Jose Alberto

Mime
View raw message