On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Niklas Matthies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed 2008-02-27 at 17:04h, Xavier Hanin wrote on ivy-user: > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Niklas Matthies wrote: > : > > > How would this be different from a regular dependency with a "force" > > > attribute? > > > > It's different only in concept: I don't like having to add a dependency > > declaration when your module don't actually depend on something. Later > you > > can wonder why you have this dependency. That's why we have the > conflicts > > section in Ivy files. So I think this kind of dependency version > overloading > > deserves a new feature. > > Okay, then how about adding an "override-only" attribute to dependency > declarations? Or as a new value of the "transitive" attribute (i.e. > transitive="override-only"). My feeling is that the feature has too > much in common with real dependencies. (It actually *is* a dependency > in the sense of demanding a particuar revision.) Every new feature > added to "dependency" that is also applicable to the revision override > features (like branches and extra attributes) would have to be carried > over, and documented separately. Or else the feature set diverges over > time. Mm, we currently use dependencies/dependency only for direct dependencies. And this is not a direct dependency. So I'd really prefer to keep it separated, as the conflicts section. > > Also the name "dependencyManagement" is really, really bad. :) > *Everything* in an ivy file is about dependendency management. > At least make it "dependency-override" or something like that. > > [Note: I've never used Maven. Adopting non-descriptive names from > Maven just to make Maven users feel more comfortable with a feature > which (probably) does almost-but-not-exactly the same thing as in > Maven feels like a really bad trade-off to me. ;)] I agree, it's a bad idea. dependency-override sounds like a much better name, if we only put dependency overriding here. Someone suggested to merge the conflicts/manager with this, since both actually tweak the way transitive dependencies are handled. Maybe we could find a better and more explicit syntax which could address both concerns? Suggestions, anyone? Xavier > > > -- Niklas Matthies > -- Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant http://xhab.blogspot.com/ http://ant.apache.org/ivy/ http://www.xoocode.org/
