On Friday 25 April 2003 16:45, Wannheden, Knut wrote: > > It'd be natural to people who've worked with XML Schema Instance documents, > where you'd write something like: > > <classpath xsi:type="my:somekindofpath"/> > > Maybe the XML Namespace like notation of "my:somekindofpath" could mean > that "somekindofpath" is a task/type defined in antlib "my". But also > something like > > <my:somekindofpath/> > > by itself (not nested in another task) could be made possible. In both > cases Ant would have to use the "somekindofpath" task in the antlib > registered as "my" (or actually the URI which "my" is a prefix for). > > > A thing to note is that "ant:" assumes that an xml namespace > > is set-up, > > <... xmlns:ant="..."> > > The way described namespaces could be used to denote antlibs. > > But again, I guess these ideas are both about antlib and roles (and even > about the use of namespaces). Yes four different items. I have been thinking about using namespaces with antlibs like this:
<project> <.. init properies .../> <use xmlns:antcontrib="antlib:${ant-contrib.jar}" xmlns:antelope="antlib:${antelope.jar}"> <target name="test"> <antelope:if> .... </antelope:if> <antcontrib:foreach ...> </target> </use> </project> > > > Another similar idea could be: > > <classpath implementationClass="acme.ant.TrickGump" ... > > > > > are alternatives (without any claim for completeness) with quite > > > different consequences when it comes to the implementation side of > > > things. > > > > One of the consequences is that Javac's public method > > createClasspath() > > may need to be modified. > > Yes, the addXXX() methods are probably way easier to deal with. Yes, Introspection should allow constructors having Project as a parameter.