Am 05.12.2003 um 18:53 schrieb Peter Reilly:
Brilliant,
With your blessing, I will copy this into the official
ant manual.
Sure. I want to add some more detail to the page over the weekend, and
especially annotate some areas where I'm personally not quite happy
with the namespace support yet.
Ch
Brilliant,
With your blessing, I will copy this into the official
ant manual.
Peter
Christopher Lenz wrote:
Hi everyone,
just a quick note that I've added some documentation to the Ant Wiki
concerning the new namespace support. If I got the facts wrong
somewhere, please correct it. Additions we
>I know that these shortcommings would be mitigated by using NameSpaces,
>but yet
>I still want to be able to lump all my antlibs into the default
>namespace and
>use them without namespace stuff.
which is why I suggested having an ant processor switch stating
a) if namespace processing is on
b
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 16:49, Knut Wannheden wrote:
> Regarding XML namespaces...
>
> Something else that would interest me is how namespaced attributes will be
> handled. IMHO they should be allowed and ignored. But will a task
> implementation have the ability to query them?
Opps,
at the
Regarding XML namespaces...
Something else that would interest me is how namespaced attributes will be
handled. IMHO they should be allowed and ignored. But will a task
implementation have the ability to query them?
Cheers,
--knut
"peter reilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAI
> From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Tuesday 11 November 2003 14:39, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> > I think the right thing, technically, is to use (b),
> > however due to the way conditions where defined (using class
> > extension) and due to the fact that extends condition
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The simplest way is to introduce roles.
Sure - but then we are way out of Ant 1.6 land. At least if we take
the released betas as an indication of what 1.6 was supposed to be.
Stefan
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 14:39, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> I think the right thing, technically, is to use (b),
> however due to the way conditions where defined (using class extension)
> and due to the fact that extends condition, this makes for a very
> ugly result. Is there a way to red
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Jose Alberto Fernandez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a way to redefine antcontrib's to make it show a
> syntax like (c) eventhough is using (b) rules?
Not as long as Ant doesn't typedef - and Ant can't do that unless
we have a way to associate different classes with
I think the right thing, technically, is to use (b),
however due to the way conditions where defined (using class extension)
and due to the fact that extends condition, this makes for a very
ugly result. Is there a way to redefine antcontrib's to make it
show a syntax like (c) eventhough is using
I'll just wade in here with my 2p.
I agree that with the number of Ant based variants...maven, jelly etc... . and
people embedding Ant inside their own applications that their is a need to
avoid collision using namespacein addition this will also allow intermixing
of Ant with other xml voca
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to get some movement on the outstanding issues
> if ant 1.6.
This is appreciated a lot by me. Thanks for going ahead, I appologize
for letting the ball drop - I've been too busy with real-life and
real-life work.
> One
12 matches
Mail list logo
