+1 Gilles
> -----Original Message----- > From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: vendredi 4 janvier 2008 14:56 > To: Ant Developers List > Subject: Re: flexible cache management (IVY-399) > > After more thoughts and while starting documenting the new cache management, > I think I have a better alternative to my last proposition: > - put any defaults related to repository cache managers in the caches > element. This include the default cache manager to use, the default basedir > (for repository cache only), default ivy and artifact pattern and default > lock strategy > - keep the defaultCache in settings element, and add a resolutionCacheDir > attribute > - deprecate cacheIvyPattern and cacheArtifactPattern on settings element in > favor of ivyPattern and artifactPattern on caches element > - remove the cacheDefaults element > > Here is how a setup would look like: > <ivysettings> > <settings defaultCache="path/to/mycache" > resolutionCacheDir="path/to/resolution/cache/dir" /> > <caches > default="mycache2" > basedir="path/to/default/repository/cache/dir" > ivyPattern="[module]/ivys/ivy-[revision].xml" > artifactPattern="[module]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]" > lockStrategy="artifact-lock" > > <cache name="mycache" > basedir="mycache" > ivyPattern="[module]/ivy-[revision].xml" > artifactPattern="[module]/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]" > lockStrategy="no-lock" > /> > <cache name="mycache2" /> > </caches> > <resolvers> > <filesystem name="A"> > <ivy > pattern="${shared}/[organisation]/[module]/ivys/ivy-[revision].xml"/> > <artifact > pattern="${shared}/[organisation]/[module]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[type]"/> > </filesystem> > <filesystem name="B" cache="mycache"> > <ivy pattern="${libraries.dir > }/[organisation]/[module]/ivys/ivy-[revision].xml"/> > <artifact pattern="${libraries.dir > }/[organisation]/[module]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[type]"/> > </filesystem> > </resolvers> > </ivysettings> > > I think this is both closer to how some other settings work (like statuses > element which allow to define the default status) and to how cache was > defined in 1.x (keeping defaultCache which was used by many users, and will > still be as long as you don't want to distinguish the two kinds of caches). > > So, does it sound like a good solution? Do you guys have other propositions? > > Xavier > > > -- > Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant > http://xhab.blogspot.com/ > http://ant.apache.org/ivy/ > http://www.xoocode.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
