I like all the suggestions... I'm curious though what it will be like if the coordinate system is more complex. It does seem like a convince but it doesn't scale to a more complex world... What would a c dependency look like and how would you know what goes in what delimited slot?
It seems to me that it needs to work consistently for all the plugins. Just thoughts... Sent from my iPhone On Nov 25, 2011, at 7:45 AM, Peter Niederwieser <[email protected]> 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`). > > > Let the voting begin. > > -- > Peter Niederwieser > Principal Engineer, Gradleware > http://gradleware.com > Creator, Spock Framework > http://spockframework.org > Twitter: @pniederw > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://gradle.1045684.n5.nabble.com/Proposals-regarding-dependency-notation-tp5022817p5022817.html > Sent from the gradle-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
