On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:53:25 -0800, Bruce Atherton <br...@callenish.com> wrote: > Sorry if the previous thread was hijacked by naming issues, but I'm not > sure I'm ready to vote in a poll yet. > > To me, only two of the options are seriously being discussed right now: > > 1) the current target-group codebase > 2) moving the behaviour of target-group into all targets through a > marker attribute > > On first glance, changing target-group to a target with a marker > attribute looks like a NOP, but this is not necessarily true. As you > pointed out before, Stefan, targets are used in quite a lot of contexts > and in some of those contexts (like import) things might get a bit > confusing if we just substitute a the target-group concept in for a target. > > My question is whether we need to provide different behaviour under any > circumstances between a target and what we now call a target-group > (other than the obvious extension of dependencies). If they can be > treated as completely equivalent I'd favour what I've labelled as option
> 2 above. If there are circumstances where, for example, you couldn't add > a dependency to a suitably marked target because of namespace issues or > import issues or whatever, then I would vote for option 1 above, so as > to make it clear to the user that there are considerations that need to > be made when using the target-group construct. > > Can anyone give a concrete example where there would be a problem > treating a target-group as if it were a target? Nitpicking: I would ask the question the other way: is there an issue to make targets opened like target groups ? For my part I don't see any. But as already wrote I have not the experience you described about finding "backwards chaining [being an] often (usually) surprising behaviour to the first time user, but once learned quickly becom[ing] second nature." I got directly to the second step (maybe because I learned Ant by reading build files wrote by Stéphane ;)) Nicolas > > Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> before we get carried away with naming discussions ... >> >> Currently I don't feel there is consensus of what we'd like to see with >> target-group (if anything at all). The options I see are >> >> * have some sort of composite of targets that other targets can add >> themselves to >> >> * have some special construct that has a depends list similar to >> target. targets can depend on such a construct and add themselves >> to the depends list (the current code base). >> >> * allow targets to add themselves to the depends lists of any other >> target >> >> * allow targets to add themselves to the depends lists of targets that >> in some way mark themselves as being open for such extensions >> >> * no target-group like construct at all >> >> * something completely different? >> >> What is your preference? >> >> Stefan >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
