Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
Received-SPF: error (idunn.apache.osuosl.org: domain apache.org from
 192.6.10.2 cause and error)
Message-ID: <451256A0.1080806@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:08:48 +0100
From: Steve Loughran <stevel@apache.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ant Developers List <dev@ant.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Resource.getURL()
References: <20060920145752.33304.qmail@web55107.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
 <87k63xltxb.fsf@www.samaflost.de>
In-Reply-To: <87k63xltxb.fsf@www.samaflost.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> --- Antoine Levy-Lambert <antoine@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Matt,
>>>
>>> thanks for fixing my fixes !
>>>
>>> did you already add getURL() to all Resource(s) ?
>>> this would be cool to be able to always set the
>>> SystemId in case of XML documents of all sorts.
>> I have been thinking it might make sense to add
>> getURL() to Resource.  Did a discussion on that
>> already take place?
> 
> I don't remember any.
> 
> Given that Resource as a class and not an interface we are able to add
> new methods even after 1.7.0 without running the risk of breaking the
> code of people who implement their own resources.  Given that there
> wouldn't be any code in Ant 1.7.0 that used getURL() we should defer
> adding the method as well, IMHO.

maybe, but if a subclass adds its own getURL() method bad things happen. 
Also, if subclasses ought to override it, then we dont give ant1.7-based 
resources a warking.

> 
>> And, for example, what would we do for resources of
>> nonstandard "protocols"?  Would a StringResource with
>> value "foo" return "string:foo" as its URL?  Should we
>> install custom protocol handlers for built-in
>> resources and encourage the same be done for
>> third-party resource implementations?
> 
> +1 for custom protocol handlers.

Its very hard to add custom protocol handlers in java once you have a 
classloader tree. and you increase the effort needed to implement a 
resource.

How about having a hasURL interface that resources can implement? That 
way things like my <random> component dont need to bother.?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org