ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28444] - Import: Target Handling Bug
Date Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:48:27 GMT
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28444>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28444

Import: Target Handling Bug





------- Additional Comments From ddevienne@lgc.com  2004-04-19 14:48 -------
I'm not sure given the last post my point came across. I'm not against using 
using a prefix to resolve conflicts between imported targets and/or with the 
local importER's targets. I'm against using the importEE's project name as the 
prefix.

I can't import two build files (without modifying them) with the 'common' 
project name for examples. And it opens the door to weird edge cases in import. 
What I propose is that the import prefix be made optional (no need for it if 
there are no conflicts), and when necessary to disambiguate conflicts, the 
importER decide what prefixes to use in its OWN build script, and that 
additionally the prefixes used are completely private to the importER, i.e. an 
implementation detail to the importER.

Anyways, this battle was already lost, and the current behavior is here to 
stay. Not that it's that bad really, just poor design in my book. But hey, I'm 
surely wrong since I've been overriden by everyone. --DD

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


Mime
View raw message