> From: Costin Manolache [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Stefan Bodewig wrote: > > > On Tue, 06 May 2003, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
