Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gscokart@gmail.com designates
 209.85.200.172 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=AzdAHwiCkXVIiL9M22Ibj3XqcFx4ZHJqhNJ76M2h8Qnuyb2RuPSIyo0xOfr+pkyhTwoPcKKEOcXKR2AAdTNgiFiydfHZy7dRSmMsEeYY7C7xBzb7bBB9i7oz59h62l/mD83g1zgN4M3Yk7vWNugEZZWFgxJGgF+jcQFuv2vsZig=
Message-ID: <e9d8a2610803291028m417881cexc093c5dc00610793@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:28:32 +0100
From: "Gilles Scokart" <gscokart@gmail.com>
To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Fixing some naming inconsistencies in Ivy
In-Reply-To: <635a05060802290331j681e417xaa1c2166debe8120@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <635a05060802290331j681e417xaa1c2166debe8120@mail.gmail.com>

On 29/02/2008, Xavier Hanin <xavier.hanin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  As reported by IVY-297, Ivy suffers from some name inconsistencies and
>  strange attribute names. Ivy 2.0 is a good opportunity to fix some of them,
>  since I think we can afford some more deprecation warnings.
>
>  So I'd like to fix IVY-297 by marking allownomd as deprecated, and providing
>  a descriptor="required | optional" attribute.
>

+1

>  To go further, we could rename the attribute skipbuildwithoutivy in
>  buildlist in skipbuildwithoutdescriptor, or even better change it to
>  buildwithoutdescriptor="skip | fail | warn | tail | head", which wold make
>  it both more readable and more powerful.
>

+1

>  Another area where the name 'ivy' is used to talk about module descriptors
>  in general is patterns. This lead to some strange settings, where you give
>  an 'ivy' pattern to tell where the poms are. In this case I think we could
>  support both 'ivy' and 'descriptor' (for resolver patterns for instance),
>  since the use case for ivy files is still predominant, so I don't think
>  deprecating the old name would really be better.

??? I don't know.


>
>  So, what do you think about these changes?
>
>  Xavier
>
>
>  --
>  Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
>  http://xhab.blogspot.com/
>  http://ant.apache.org/ivy/
>  http://www.xoocode.org/
>


-- 
Gilles Scokart

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