From dev-return-58091-apmail-ant-dev-archive=ant.apache.org@ant.apache.org Fri May 28 15:43:27 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 83490 invoked from network); 28 May 2004 15:43:27 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 28 May 2004 15:43:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 44527 invoked by uid 500); 28 May 2004 15:40:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 40311 invoked by uid 500); 28 May 2004 15:39:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 30774 invoked by uid 98); 28 May 2004 15:38:40 -0000 Received: from DDevienne@lgc.com by hermes.apache.org by uid 82 with qmail-scanner-1.20 (clamuko: 0.70. Clear:RC:0(134.132.72.99):. Processed in 0.066838 secs); 28 May 2004 15:38:40 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: DDevienne@lgc.com via hermes.apache.org X-Qmail-Scanner: 1.20 (Clear:RC:0(134.132.72.99):. Processed in 0.066838 secs) Received: from unknown (HELO junior.lgc.com) (134.132.72.99) by hermes.apache.org with SMTP; 28 May 2004 15:38:39 -0000 Received: from lgchvw01.lgc.com (lgchvw01.lgc.com [134.132.93.107]) by junior.lgc.com (8.11.7/8.11.3) with SMTP id i4SFbC423304 for ; Fri, 28 May 2004 10:37:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 134.132.93.152 by lgchvw01.lgc.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 28 May 2004 10:38:17 -0500 Received: by lgchexchbh.ad.lgc.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Fri, 28 May 2004 10:38:17 -0500 Message-ID: From: Dominique Devienne To: "'Ant Developers List'" Subject: RE: cvs commit: ant/src/main/org/apache/tools/ant/taskdefs Define r.java Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 10:38:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Rating: hermes.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:jalberto@cellectivity.com] > > We do barf on targets with circular dependencies, so why wouldn't > > we barf for circular AntLib dependencies? > > Remember that in general you have no control of the dependencies > of Antlibs (since they may be shrink-wrap 3rd party binary libraries). > So, it could be the case that you reach such a situation just > because two 3rd party antlibs have common dependencies or something. > > You need to get the right behavior without needing to alter the libs. That's just the point! Two AntLibs having common dependencies is not cicurlar, so won't be an error. Any scenario where AntLibs are mutually dependent, directly or not, is an error, so the AntLibs *should* be altered, i.e. fixed. And for BC, it's better to lock down the behavior initially, and possibly relax it in the future based on real world feedback, rather than being lax initially, and breaking BC is we finally discovered we should not have been that lax... I vote for raising on exception (assuming I understood the issue correctly). Peter can correct me. --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org