On Fri, 13 May 2005, Phil Weighill Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 09:00 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
>> > But say the importER explicitly depends on bar.foo . Isn't this
>> > still going to pollute the log in the opposite way my
>> > implementation would? :) i.e.
>> >
>> > [foo]:
>> >
>> > [bar.foo]:
>>
>> Yes. But this is less likely than having the importer depend on
>> "foo" IMHO. So in the normal case everything would look the same
>> as today and in border cases we'll get an additional empty target.
>
> If I understand what you're saying correctly, you don't expect
> importer build scripts to depend explicitly on the renamed imported
> targets.
No. I fully expect importers to do so now. And if they do they must
have overridden the target themselves, so what Matt descibes doesn't
happen.
Let's take your example and add a target.
> I'd disagree: we commonly "augment" the standard targets like this:
>
> standard.xml:
>
> <project name="standard">
> <target name="compile">...</target>
<target name="new-target"/>
> </project>
>
> build.xml:
>
> <project name="my-build" basedir="." default="compile">
> <import file="${standard.dir}/standard.xml"/>
>
> <target name="compile" depends="standard.compile">...</target>
> </project>
Today your build.xml can't use a target that depends on
"standard.new-target" as this target doesn't exist.
Peter's approach would create a copy of "new-target" with the name
"standard.new-target".
Matt's approach would implicitly add a new target
<target name="new-target" depends="standard.new-target"/>
to build.xml (which also renames the "new-target" in standard.xml to
"standard.new-target"). Now if you run
$ ant new-target
the output will be
,----
| standard.new-target:
|
| new-target:
`----
and you see that new-target has been imported from standard.
My approach would adds
<target name="standard.new-target" depends="new-target"/>
to build.xml. "ant new-target" still looks the same as it would if we
don't add a target at all. But now if you use
$ ant standard.new-target
the output will be
,----
| new-target:
|
| standard.new-target:
`----
So in either case you get to see an implementation detail - the empty
target that either Matt or I wanted to introduce. I simply claimed
that Matt's case was more likely to happen than mine since you can't
depend on "standard.new-target" or invoke "ant standard.new-target" at
all today.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
