We could add some macro task that copies the resources into a cache directory and then applies the <import> from there.
What this would mean is that all the "relative" stuff will be relative to the cache location. Something like: <fetchimport cache=dir> <resource href="http:...."/> </fetchimport> The macro will use <get> to put it in the cache and then use import on the content of the cache. Would that make sense you think? Jose Alberto > -----Original Message----- > From: Dominique Devienne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 29 November 2005 15:19 > To: Ant Developers List > Subject: Re: Importing and caching build files from a URL > > On 11/29/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > It would fit better into Ant´s future if the existing <import> would > > support <resources> - e.g. <urlresource>s. > > We've had this debate before... > > I'd be all for allowing to <import> resources instead of files, except > for the way <import> was designed to not do things relative to its > parent directory, like HTML and XSL hrefs. I can't see how we could > have a clean "relative" import model like HTML/XSL while retaining BC. > Yes, we could probably import easily a resource of the "first level", > but it would be kludgy at best for this imported build to refer to > other resources in the same jar file for example. > > So really we have to choose between limiting ourself to our current > design for import, or extend it to resources but in such a way that I > feel is unnatural, inconsistent, and a bit of a hack. But maybe I'm > just missing the point somewhere, or my view that import is flawed is > what flawed in fact ;-) --DD > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
