Dominique Devienne wrote, On 01/08/2003 17.14:
-----Original Message----- From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 9:24 AM To: Ant Developers List Subject: Re: override
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:47 pm, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
How can this thing be done while shielding interactions?
You make the renaming optional.
So you mean it's an ||, I cannot have both :,-( ;-)
<import file="a.xml"/> <import file="b.xml"/>
All of a's and b's targets go unprefixed. If those builds use targets
which
are provided by the main build, or by the other, unprefixed, import then
there is no problem. This situation thus allows the cross-interactions.
IIUC you mean that it's exactly like using <include>, right?
We need to decide a few issues. Is mutliple definitions of a target considered an error or does one definition win. If one wins, which one - the first or the last. I prefer to have this as an error.
Me too. Should be an error, forcing the user of the imported files to explicitly resolve the conflicts, thanks to renaming. Might be a little more work, but tons more predictable, and will not surprise anyone.
Seems it won't change the way it works now, as I would still be able to redefine the target, only that I have to override it with the override task.
<import file="a.xml" prefix="a"/> <import file="b.xml" prefix="b"/>
In this case each import's targets are prefixed and thus will not collide. Specific overriding in the build could make desired connections.
<override target="a.init"> <antcall target="b.init"/> </override>
Thoughts?
I agree with Nicola Ken that using <antcall> is wasteful resource-wise, and that what it should really be is:
<override target="init"> <depends target="a.init" /> <depends target="b.init" /> </override>
Can't it be instead:
<override target="init" depends="a.init, b.init"/>
It's more similar to how target works. I'm ok with either though.
I'm also starting to think that targets from a and b that do not conflict
should *not* be renamed,
IIUC that's how it should work now, with the only difference that the single, non colliding, target has two names (init and a.init).
and that renamed targets from a and b should not be call-able directly from the command line, but only from within the build file itself, to compose them as shown above.
Why? I see no reason for it.
I already wrote about this, but I'll say again that nobody should be aware of the renaming taking place but the build file that does the importing/renaming.
Sorry, I don't understand this sentence in it's practical implications. Could you please expand a bit?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
