On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Matt Benson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > --- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not that bad. IH already favor setters for anything that's not a
>
gt; > typedef'd or have their ns mapped. Well, I
> suppose
> > e.g.
> >
> > antlib:org.foo/customResource?bar
> >
> > wouldn't be the end of the world,
>
> I don't think it would be too much to simply require
> ressources to be
>
think it would be too much to simply require ressources to be
typedef'ed if you want to use the String -> Ressource magic.
>> For BC we'd have to keep the File-argument setters anyway. IH
>> could be changed to use setSrc(Ressource) in favor of setSrc(File)
>> and us
> --- Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
rule 1 of xml: nobody understands XML namespaces
rule 2: anybody who says they do. still doesnt.
so there are the following categories
-ignorant of xmlns
-vaguely aware, but doesnt understand
-think they understand, but doesnt really
-knows xmlns
Matt Benson wrote:
--- Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe. :) But really, I appreciate your input. I
have no problem admitting how clueless I am wrt xml in
general and ns in particular. :|
rule 1 of xml: nobody understands XML namespaces
rule 2: anybody who says they do. sti
--- Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Matt Benson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I think what is needed is a well-known syntax
> specification for
> >> specifying a string representation of
> [resource-type][String to pass
> >> to c
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think what is needed is a well-known syntax specification for
specifying a string representation of [resource-type][String to pass
to constructor] e.g. "file?/foo/bar.baz",
"url?http://www.apache.org";, "string?
--- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Matt Benson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think what is needed is a well-known syntax
> specification for
> > specifying a string representation of
> [resource-type][String to pass
> > to constructor] e.g. "file?/foo/bar
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think what is needed is a well-known syntax specification for
> specifying a string representation of [resource-type][String to pass
> to constructor] e.g. "file?/foo/bar.baz",
> "url?http://www.apache.org";, "string?blah blah blah".
