From: "Erik Hatcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > IMHO it's better to use composition rather than inheritance, ie compose > > common build parts in your builds, like Java use Java packages. > > I'm not entirely convinced of this yet, but I still need to ponder this > some. > > Example: > I want to "inherit" a common web app project and add, say, XDoclet > generation of web.xml. > > > It's more a uses-a relationship rather than a is-a one. > > > > With imports you can modularize your builds. > > But I don't want to import all the pieces for every build. I want to inject > something into the dependency graph of an already pre-defined build. How > would that play out with imports?
What I think it should be very useful on large projects is to provide operations simillar in their semantics to <xsl:include> and <xsl:import>. The former works just like our current <import> proposal (I wish we rename it), the latter provides for overriding of templates in XSLT and could provide overriding of targets in ANT. Which can give a major boost for writing generic build-files for projects. Any opinions about having something like that? Jose Alberto -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
