On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IIUC EasyAnt solits the two use-cases found for <import> into two > > logical tasks. > > > > * you never want to override a target, you just want to reuse them: <use> > > That's an <include> to me. Rename <use> into <include>, and I'm +1,
I'm not bound to names. > > EasyAnt also adds an as-attribute to <use> where the writer of the > > importing build file can control the prefix of the <use>d targets and > > overrules the <use>d project's name. This makes sense IMHO. > > It does to me too :) > >> I'm not totally sure whether the as-attribute would make sense for >> <extends> as well, EasyAnt currently silently ignores it in that case. > > It makes as much sense in <import> as it does in <include> to me, i.e. > to restore proper compartmentalization of the builds. I'd probably want to allow it for symmetry as well, but I haven't thought through all implications. > I don't think we should invent new terminology (use/extends) for > something that already exists (import) and it's natural equivalent to > use (include, which doesn't exist). Then we need to stretch the difference. Two new names would increas awareness that <import> does something special. > What's missing from the above is the notion of TargetGroup to > implement the phase concept of EasyAnt (and Maven I guess). True. To me those concepts are orthogonal and I'd like to have separate discussions on them (and picked this topic to be first). Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
