> > 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.
+1 =) >> 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'm not sure that adding an as-attribute make sense for <extends>. In our POC you can "import" with <use> mode the same file with different prefix. exemple : <project name="Abstract-Module"> ... </project> <project name="Concret-Module1"> <use file="Abstract-Module" as "AbstractModuleConcret1"/> ... </project> <project name="Concret-Module2"> <use file="Abstract-Module" as "AbstractModuleConcret2"/> ... </project> <project name="genericBuild"> <extends file="Concret-Module1"/> <extends file="Concret-Module2"/> </project> I guess adding an as attribute on <extends> is like having only one import mode where we can add prefix, and i'm not sure this is the solution. IMHO we need those two kind of import: - <extends> similar to the actual <import> - <use> is like a "Rich" <import> that support namespace and that allow you to import many time the same build script with different namespace. That's why i think "as attribute" should be used only with <use>. What do you think about it? > > > 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). Nice :)
