[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IVY-366?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12478942
]
Maarten Coene commented on IVY-366:
-----------------------------------
I've committed some changes to SVN to ease implementing a solution for this:
- Added 'resolveId' concept to ivy core.
- Modified ant tasks to use this resolveId while keeping old behaviour as
default.
The changes to the ant tasks are not complete yet and needs some more testing.
I'll do that the next couple of days...
> Scope and status leakage during build lifecycle
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: IVY-366
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IVY-366
> Project: Ivy
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Ant, Core
> Affects Versions: 1.4.1
> Reporter: Stephane Bailliez
> Assigned To: Maarten Coene
>
> Writing this to keep track of the problem following mail in dev@:
> Just a couple of lines about something that has been bothering me for a long
> time.
> Ivy stores a lot of properties (including an instance of itself after
> configure) while running, and other tasks add properties on their way as well.
> I don't like very much this as it prevents to do separation of concerns
> between ivy instances, and resolve calls for example as it basically provides
> you a couple of nice way to shoot yourself in the foot rather transparently.
> A minor mistake is enough to make you scratch your head for some time.
> The typical example would be that I have a common build xml which provides
> all the lifecycle needed for most projects.
> It is doing the resolve for standardized conf and types.
> Projects can override some targets to add their own dependencies and retrieve
> them.
> Typical example would be to retrieve a binary file (or whatever which is not
> used for compilation but for running/packaging)
> Which basically means that it must do its own resolve/retrieve call and thus
> will interfere with the properties that have already been set. So the
> packaging, publishing process (which is later in the cycle) , may actually be
> altered by the fact that I have ran a different set of ivy calls.
> NB: This information leakage is particulary evil when you're doing a complex
> build with different setups where you're doing subant calls. It becomes very
> very hard to make sure you're not doing something wrong.
> At first I would say: "Would be nice to at least have 'scopes' but there
> might be a better way.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
