On 26/11/2011, at 12:45 AM, Peter Niederwieser wrote:
> Devs,
>
> I have a few proposals regarding our dependency notation.
>
> 1. I strongly prefer the String notation over the Map notation. I find
> `"foo:bar:1.0"` both more readable and more writeable than `group: "foo",
> name: "bar", version: "1.0"`. It's a DSL at its best. However, most of our
> documentation and hence most of the build files I come across use the clumsy
> map notation.
>
> Proposal: Promote the String notation and use it throughout our
> documentation.
>
> 2. Once more advanced dependency attributes come into play, the String
> notation is no longer sufficient. This already holds today for the
> `configuration` attribute (which can't be set on the object because it is
> designed to be immutable) and I assume we'll have more of this in the
> future. Currently, adding such an attribute forces me to switch from String
> to Map notation, which is disruptive and violates 1.
>
> Proposal: Allow mixing of String and Map notation. Example:
>
> dependencies {
> compile "foo:bar:1.0", configuration: "api"
> }
>
> This combines the best of two worlds: the conciseness of the String
> notation, and the generic nature of the Map notation.
>
> 3. As a student in one of my trainings pointed out, there is an
> inconsistency between
>
> dependencies { compile group: "foo", name: "bar", ... }
>
> and
>
> dependencies {
> compile(...) {
> exclude group: "foo", module: "bar"
> }
> }
>
> I can see where this is coming from: Contrary to the 'name' in the
> dependency notation, the `module` in the exclude rule has to be able to
> stand on its own. But it still feels a bit odd that we use different terms
> here and there.
>
> Proposal: Use the same term in both cases (either `name` or `module`).
It should be module, I think.
>
>
> Let the voting begin.
I like all of these suggestions.
--
Adam Murdoch
Gradle Co-founder
http://www.gradle.org
VP of Engineering, Gradleware Inc. - Gradle Training, Support, Consulting
http://www.gradleware.com
