On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And it is possible to do so independently of actually depending on a > particular project. > > I think it doesn't make sense that you can refer to something about > some project without depending on it.
The only use-case I know is when you really only depend on the module, not the project (i.e. the home and srcdir type of references). > If you need to be aware of the project to do your build, isn't that > some form of dependency? Yes, but maybe a form that is not related to building a project at all. We used to have such a situation in the dom4j/jaxen situation. dom4j copied parts of jaxen into its own build area (or the other way around, I don't have access to my Gump descriptors right now) and compiled them. So it doesn't depend on the project jaxen, just on the presence of its sources. Similar things could be something like "I depend on the project.xml of another module so I can reference it". Or just "I need the location of some include files so I can tell configure where to find them". If we add module level dependency and more interesting types than "depend --> add the jars to CLASSPATH", we would address those issues. > If that is the case, <property/> inside <ant/> right now should > automatically mean a <depend/> (right now a <depend/> inside <ant/> > also means a <property/>). I like things to be explicit, so I'd rather remove "<depend/> inside of <ant/>" completely and don't create any dependencies implicitly. But that may be just me - and I'm able to adapt 8-). > I believe it is desireable and possible to generalize these > references to be able to customize a whole lot of other things about > the environment that is available when gump runs a command to build > a particular project. No argument. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
