Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/11/2002 05:00:18 PM:
> As you may have seen, the import tag patch now supports redefining > targets :-) > > Suppose this target: > > <target name="mytarget" depends="a,b,c"><dostuff/></target> > > is in a file that is imported by my buildfile. > > With the patch I can redefine it as follows: > > <target name="mytarget"> > <dostuff1/> > <antcall target="super.mytarget"/> Is super.mytarget a 'special' keyword? Given that you're 'redefining' that target (mytarget), what does antcalling it do? This is confusing IMHO for an end user. > <dostuff2/> > </target> > > > Now, mytarget currently does *not* inherit dependencies, although, > having used the same name, it will effectively replace the old version > in the graph. Not inheriting dependencies vs inheriting them should really be a non issue. Either it replaces the old one completely or it doesn't, would be my take. > This is the order in which the targets are called, also with the outcome > in case we enable dependency inheritance: > > 1 original mytarget: a->b->c->dostuff > 2 redefined mytarget: dostuff1->a->b->c->dostuff->dostuff2 Makes sense. > 3 dependency inherit: a->b->c->dostuff1->dostuff->dostuff2 Doesn't make sense. > IMHO (2) would be the outcome that users think comes out. > > What do you think? Yip. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Work: http://www.multitask.com.au Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
