On 9/29/06, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FYI all, this AM I did think of another point which heavily favors application-level resolution: we have already set a precedent for this with our handling of the antlib: pseudo-protocol.
Spring also does application-level resolution: see: http://static.springframework.org/spring/docs/2.0.x/reference/resources.html Peter -Matt
----- Original Message ---- From: Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Ant Developers List <dev@ant.apache.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 4:19:11 PM Subject: Re: Resource.getURL() - example --- Scott Stirling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/28/06, Stephen McConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > [...] > > This difference in scope an example that > demonstrates an area where existing > > protocols and software are insufficient. > > OK, if you say so. In my experience the statement > "existing protocols > and software are insufficient," is a red flag, but I > will step aside. > I feel like I am ignorant of what's really going on > in your builds. > I've worked some pretty hairy cross-repository > builds in commercial > systems. I've never needed to resort to custom > protocol handlers, so I > obviously don't know something about your situation > that you do. Fair > enough. [SNIP] > > I have to look into Depot. Like I said, I think I'll > step aside and > let the discussion open up for others to give input. As the opener of this can of worms I welcome all input. My situation: it is my opinion that Ant needs a solution here. I am working on the assumption no committer would -1 me on this point. That accomplished, it seems that the custom protocol handler idea and the application-level pseudo-protocol idea are the two possibilities at hand. I still know fairly little about the former; the latter is fairly straightforward. As far as I know I am the originator of both suggestions in the context of resolving an Ant resource from a string representation. Given my lack of expertise on the protocol-based approach and the apparent "depth" of that solution, I solicited the opinions of others. The apparent results so far: protocol-based approach: -tricky to get installed smoothly and correctly -no Ant developer knowledge, but possibly Stephen M. is willing to guide us where we stumble? -standard (for better or worse); therefore possibly applicable to more situations AND preexisting protocols may be easier to adapt to Ant. -seen by some as "too much"? (is that a fair paraphrase of your feelings, Scott?) application-level approach: -3rd-party impls still require some sort of Ant-specific registration -resolution is fairly straightforward -solution only applies to whatever situations we explicitly provide for. My current impression is that, partially contingent on Stephen's willingness to field questions, ;) the protocol-based solution is preferable, or at least worth _proving_ unsuitable. In any event, I'd like for us to reach a decision on this fairly soon before this thread runs out of steam and we have to do it all over again (voice of experience). What are the other committers' feelings at this point? TIA, Matt > > Best regards, > Scott Stirling > Framingham, MA > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
