On Wed 2009-04-15 at 04:48h, Shawn Castrianni wrote on ivy-user: > I suppose that would work, but I think allowing "configuration > intersection" where a module declares a dependence on the > intersection of 2 or more configurations of another module is a > cleaner approach. Your wildcard approach would require lots of > configurations for all permutations of all axis to be declared which > might clutter up the ivy.xml file.
Ok, I skimped over the details. The intent of my approach was exactly that you wouldn't have to declare all combinations, and instead can use wildcards when declaring configurations and artifacts. This means that the set of concrete configurations is potentially open-ended, yes, because anything matching the wildcards is admissible. The point of this approach is that it retains the property that dependencies are still defined just in terms of singular configurations, not intersections of configurations or whatnot. This likely makes it easier to implement, would affect less other code and hence be more robust. -- Niklas Matthies
