>> However, it is a pity that AssetTask has to extend
>> ConditionBase ... oh well.
>
> It doesn't "have to", does it? All it needs is an add(Condition)
> method, no?
No. Most of the "old" conditions are not <typedef>ed and so don't
have a "name" of their own, you can't add them to a task that only has
add(Condition).
What is preventing us from declaring them? OK, typedef'ing them would
probably create some havoc and name conflict.
Now that we have add(Type) introspection (what I also call extension
points), we should *really* get away from being forced to derive from
ConditionBase or similar base classes. I see two ways to allow this:
1) Have an Ant-conditions antlib, and force users of AntUnit to
explicit load it, with or without using an XML namespace. I'd be fine
with this myself.
2) Introduce a <tagdef> or <roledef> for the purpose of locating
extension points as nested elements. They differ from <typedef>s in
that they don't allow to declare these 'tags' at the top-level, but
only as nested-elements of another type or task.
What do you think? --DD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
