Centipede as a <dom> task I think, and I also created one myself a long time
ago... Mine (a DataType) was creating a DOM DocumentFragment, that you could
then use internally, pass on to other classes, or serialize. I believe both
use DynamicConfigurator. Regards, --DD
<project default="test">
<typedef name="xmlfragment"
classname="org.apache.tools.ant.types.XmlFragment" />
<xmlfragment id="root">
<level1 attr="toto">
<level2/>
</level1>
</xmlfragment>
<target name="test">
<property name="root" refid="root" />
<echo message="Coucou ;-) root=${root}" />
</target>
</project>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 11:18 AM
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: Free-form ANT Task Structure
>
> To embed the config information, the easiest
> is to map the info to objects.
>
> Ant introspection is very powerfull and easy
> to use for normal java data object.
>
> Alternatively one can use the DynamicConfigurator
> interface. This provides the name of the unknown element
> and the name/value of unknown attributes.
>
> Peter
>
> On Tuesday 20 May 2003 16:18, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> > I want to write a task that allows me to embed XML configuration
> > information to set up some integration tests using JUnit as a
> > base.
> >
> > I can live with a DOM or JDOM to interpret and transform into my
> > configuration objects. The concept is based on some work I originally
> > did to extend JUnit for testing Avalon components. The thing is
> > that I want to change the way the JUnit test runner works so that
> > I can preload my Avalon container with the proper components,
> > and I can iterate through all the implementations of a component
> > with the same test against it.
> >
> > In order for this to happen properly, I need to pass configuration
> > information to the container. The two options I have is to require
> > the configuration as a separate file, or to allow the configuration
> > to be embedded in the ANT task.
> >
> > I would prefer to have the config embedded so that I can work on
> > things one step at a time. Otherwise--I have to resort to the
> > file approach.
> >
> > What are your thoughts? Is it too much to ask for free-form
> > elements as a sub of a task, or do they HAVE to map to objects?
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
