On 1/15/08, Louis Tribble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Consequently, my main comment (apologies if I missed it in the thread) > is that any magic target overriding feature needs to balanced by > a target locking feature, for at least two reasons: (1) the integrity of > the > build depends on certain chunks of script (typically in the xxx-default > targets) always being invoked and (2) nobody can understand and > manage a build of 500 modules if modules do their own thing even for > basic tasks like compiling and creating jars.
This is interesting. So you want some kind of "final" keyword for a target, to allow controlled customization only, right? Basically the template method pattern, with an immutable public target, and only limited customization. > A corollary is that if I were to base this system on the hypothesized > Ant-supplied system, I expect I would need to customize quite a bit, > but I would not want to expose most of that customizability to the > modules. (Perhaps that is something like what Gilles was thinking > when he mentioned two levels of customization?) That's where I'm confused. You want to be able to customize in some places, but not in others??? I don't quite follow what you mean here. --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
