> 2. if you use antlib://org/ex/resource.xml we load in the resource by its > full path, so you dont need multiple packages to have multiple antlib files. > I'm not sure about #2; I think it is convenient once you have antlib-only > distros (i.e. inline declaration and script; nothing else), but am not sure > about the syntax. Maybe > antlib://org.ex/antlib.xml would be better, and more in keeping with WWW > URLs; if /antlib.xml is omitted, we would add it by default.
What's the point of having two antlibs in the same package? I would much prefer we stick to the simpler auto-magic URIs (in xmlns) we use for AntLibs. I'm not too fond of your #2 ;-) We should keep things the way they are, i.e. antlib:package.name and that's it IMHO. The resource can already be specified with an explicit <typedef> no? --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
