On 9/13/06, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, I did not see the changes. But in principle I agree with Dominique that a roledef should have 3 attributes : name, role, classname or can we make the role attribute optional by finding out by introspection whether a class is a condition, or a selector, or a ... In any case we should have the field role in the table storing the roles in memory. It is also possible that one class be both a condition and a selector for instance. In this case, the class could be bound to different names as a function of its role.
I do not like the idea of a role. A class declares which Interfaces it supports - Condition, Selector or whatever, the java compiler and java runtime enforces that. There is no need for us to invent new ways to do this! It is complicated - and prone to bugs both in the core ant code and when users define them (in xml). Peter Regards,
Antoine On Sep 13, 2006, at 2:52 AM, Dominique Devienne wrote: >> > > however we can add the @ant.type tags now for documentation?, >> > >> > Sure, provided we settle on a doc tag name, which ideally would >> match >> > the <*def> we choose. --DD >> >> >> @ant.type --> <typedef> >> @ant.task --> <taskdef> >> @ant.role --> <roledef> > > Role implies (to me at least) that the name is bound to a given role, > like being a condition or a file selector, which would be explicitly > specified by name (or class name). Since your changes just bind a > name, without an explicit "role", it's not my favorite. I lean toward > <elementdef> or <tagdef> myself, the latter being my preference. > > But I'm beyond neat picking here ;-) --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
