> I never liked the target renaming stuff - it seems a bit strange. > Be that as it may, the current behaviour is a bit silly - i.e. inconsistent. > The target gets renamed if there another target of the same name, but > not otherwise - how can one write a proper reusable import file using the > rename feature in this case?
I never liked target renaming either. Sure, renaming all targets is more consistent, and I'm +1 for it, but it's still very flawed. The imported build names should never appear in the importer, we should have an explicit override attribute (or something) that tells Ant the target is meant to override a target in an imported build (which fails the build if it does not override any target), and have a "super" target to possibly rely on, instead of "renamed" target. And targets from different imported build files that conflict (multiple inheritance) should raise an error unless explicitly imported "as" given by the importer (not the name of the imported project as is the case now). The "as" name used would then be supplied to the "super" keyword. Sorry, I couldn't resist bring all that up again. I know it's water on the bridge, and that I lost this argument a long time ago, but it still bugs me. But eh, I gave my +1 to systematic target renaming ;-) --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
