On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) How about collisions? Well, how about collisions between classes > in the classpath? Putting antlibs into namespaces was supposed to resolve those collisions, just like namesspaces in C++. > How about loading a task that collides with one already defined in > defaults.properties? What do we do in this case? Shall we react the > same way? Sure, this (complain loudly) is what we're doing with multiple <typedef>s for the same name as well. it may just be annoying, so annoaying that people will avoid autoloading. > 2) Shall we keep control on what gets aoutoloaded? I would say yes! Good 8-) > I disagree on having some global switch (option) instead I would > propose something like -lib (no autoloading) and -autolib (do > autoloading). But you'd use the same classloader for both, right? Otherwise explaining Ant's classloaders becomes even more complex. > 3) Have an antlib.xml in META-INF for autoloading. My only misgiving > on doing it this way is the duplication of declarations. Matt's example of using different names for autoloads (that end up in the default namespace) and namespaced tasks would show an example of when you want to have separate files. This may be a bit artificial, though. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
