Conor MacNeill wrote: > > Jonas, > > I agree with Stefan. This is too implicit for my liking. Specially named > targets are not a good idea, IMHO. If you did want to have this sort of > specific meaning, (and I question whether that is the case, anyway), I > think it would require a different element name such as <dynamic>. > > So for now, I'm -1 on this patch.
Is that a -1 for the whole idea or just for the current patch? I agree that forcing the use of the name 'dynamic' was not such a good idea. Using the same way to configure the name of the dynamic target as is used for specifying the default target would change that. The "too implicit" argument remains, I guess. As I see it, using 'ant dynamic -Ddynamic.target=com.foo.bar' is not the same thing because that would bypass the com.foo.bar target if it existed. / Jonas
