On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stefan Bodewig wrote: > >> I don't see a need for separate namespaces depending on the >> interfaces, so only using the child's element name (and namespace) >> could be enough. I'm not sure whether I'm overlooking a problem. > > Not sure I understand. Namespaces are not required to solve the > polymorphism problem.
Me neither, two overloaded meanings for "namespace". Let me try to rephrase: I don't see the need for a different mapping of names to classes depending on the interface, one mapping should be enough. This would mean the child's element name (and XML namespace) should suffice and we don't need the interface the child is expected to implement to determine the class. > My concern was the API used by ComponentHelper - I would rather > add the "parent" parameter, even if it's not used now, if we expect > we'll find some use cases that will require it ( say in 1.7+ ). OK. >> An alternative to a magic namespace would be magic attribute names. >> We can use attributes that contain dashes >> >> <dependset> >> <zipfileset use-as="srcfileset"> >> </dependset> >> >> use-as quite clearly states the user's intent and it is impossible >> to have an existing attribute for tasks or nested elements. > > Sounds good ( not "use-as", but magic attribute ). Maybe "ant:type" > would be better ? This introduces a magic attribute name and a magic namespace. Works for me. > The attribute should be optional Of course. Stefan
