Hey, > Sure, lets agree that capturing common properties of dependencies and > grouping dependency elements which share the same properties in order > to reduce verbosity of YAML files is a separate topic.
Seems good! > This makes the assumption that an Element stages artifacts (which is > indeed an expected commonality but not necessarily a requirement). > More scary than this, is that handing this over to the core would also > make the core responsible for calling Element.stage_artifact(), which > is now clearly in the domain of the implementing plugin. I think this > would be an immense redesign. > Further, I don't think it's desirable for all elements to be given this > much power. For some plugins I might want to be sure that project > author cannot just stage dependencies willy nilly at various locations > in my sandbox, but only allow the project author to give me "the > runtime tooling artifacts" and "the payload artifacts". You are right, and as long as BuildElement and ScriptElement have this feature, it's better to not have it on Element itself. > Alright, lets give a small pause for others to ring in but I think > we're mostly in agreement at this time that we can change things to say > that [...] The plan seems good to me, I can't think of a useful feature that it would definitely prevent. Thanks a lot, Ben
