ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: Ant "roles"
Date Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:44:05 GMT
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Matt Benson <> wrote:

> I think we already have 1. and 2. if we want to use
> antlibs,

except we don't have the descriptors, yet.

> and assuming we can place additional resources where we like.

We can.

>> Something where loading of the descriptor gets triggered by the
>> namespace URI, but this is optional, at least for me.
> If we have consent to add resources,

did anybody object?

> then yes, the above is optional, but for me only barely so.

I understand that, and have no problem with adding a new ant* protocol
to shorten this.  It doesn't have to be ant: and it doesn't have to be
antlib:, but even for antlib we could easily make it work by adding a
subprotocol if needed.

> It almost seems integral that if we are going to essentially bundle
> antlibs in the core, then those should be distinguished by a custom
> means of access, and that as terse as possible.

Yes, I agree, but it is no show-stopper to me.


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

View raw message