>>>>> "sr" == rubys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
sr> Stefan wrote:
>> If it was only for the taskdef case that started all this, I still
>> think a depends attribute like Matt suggested would have been the
>> best solution.
sr> Would have? Don't give up!
Just some kind of language confusion I guess, german and english verb
forms don't always line up very well and when in doubt I tend to get
it wrong.
"would be the best solution" seems more appropriate.
sr> <project default="main">
sr> <taskdef depends="bootstrap" />
sr> <target name="prep" />
sr> <target name="bootstrap" depends="prep"/>
sr> <target name="main" depends="prep"/>
sr> </project>
sr> Given this example, a build of main will result in the following
sr> order: prep bootstrap taskdef main
sr> What concerns me is that we are going from a simple ordering
sr> scheme for targets based on the specification of a single desired
sr> outcome to a scheme where the ordering of targets can be
sr> influenced by multiple implicit sources.
The depends attribute of taskdef looks quite explicit to me. I cannot
write down that example without the depends attribute at all.
<project default="main">
<tasks from the bootstrap target of your example - how do we satisfy
the depends="prep" part?>
<taskdef />
<target name="prep" />
<target name="main" depends="prep"/>
</project>
Closest would be
<project default="main">
<tasks from the prep target of your example>
<tasks from the bootstrap target of your example>
<taskdef />
<target name="main" />
</project>
And the prep target is gone as well.
>> Something inside of me says "only allow tasks outside of targets
>> if there are no targets at all" but that's probably too confusing
>> - especially to new users.
sr> Now that I do not like.
I didn't say I'd be fond of it myself. I see that this would make the
learning curve of Ant a "learning jump" at one point.
Your example leads to another transition though. If I start moving
tasks out of my targets I might need to restructure my whole
buildfile. But of course I don't need to move tasks to the same level
as targets - as long as taskdef gains a depends attribute ;-).
sr> If we believe that users should be aware of the distinction
sr> between javac-like things (tasks), and taskdef-like things
sr> (declarations), then we shouldn't encourage people to develop bad
sr> habits to begin with.
Agreed - you could remove the "if" part and we'd still agree though.
Stefan
