On 15 January 2013 23:06, Adam Murdoch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > To better support building Android apps (and other things), we want to > rework the jvm language plugins so that they can handle building multiple > outputs from a given set of source files. > > I've made a bit of a start on a spec here, but's pretty rough: > https://github.com/gradle/gradle/blob/master/design-docs/building-multiple-outputs-from-jvm-languages.md > > I need some suggestions for terminology: > > 1. A term for the things that Gradle builds. With this work, plus > publications, components, reports and distributions work that is happening, > we're starting to model more of the things that Gradle can build. It feels > like we should have a term for this. So far we've been calling these things > 'things' and sometimes 'outputs'. I kind of like the term 'build item' from > abuild. > > I really don't like 'build item' as it doesn't really say anything. How about 'build product', 'build artifact', or something more concrete. It's a shame that "build outputs" is too overloaded. Or we could use something like 'software product', 'software artifact'? > 2. A term for a thing that runs on a JVM. This is the focus of the spec > above. The spec calls these things a 'packaging', but this doesn't really > work that well. Note that this isn't the logical thing - we're calling them > 'components' - but the physical thing. Initially, there are 2 types of this > thing - a class directory packaging and a JAR packaging. If we come up with > a good term for 'things' in #1 above, we could just shove 'jvm' in front of > it as a name for these things (e.g. 'jvm build item'). > 'jvm build item' is not very descriptive to me. How about 'jvm software artifact', 'jvm build product'? 3. A term for a set of source of a specific language, that forms the input > to a compilation step. This is different to what we call 'source set' at > the moment - that's a logical grouping of source. The spec calls these > things a 'language source set'. > > 4. A term for a logical set of source. Currently we call these a 'source > set'. The spec calls these things a 'functional source set'. > I don't mind 'source set' and 'compound source set' as terms. But I don't think I've got a handle on how these are different. Daz
