ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gilles Scokart" <gscok...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Maybe we should open up "depends" for all targets
Date Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:50:27 GMT
2008/11/21 Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org>:
> On 2008-11-20, Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org> wrote:
>>> target-group is-a target.  A "plain target" is a target as opposed to
>>> a target-group.
>
>> Since I have conceptualized them in my head as something different
>> than targets, I forget that implementation-wise they remain targets.
>
> Not only implementation-wise, also in my head, conceptually.
>
>> I actually think it would be better if the code made them distinct
>> classes, possibly extracting an interface for the perform and
>> dependency getting parts, but that's a different story. From the
>> user and documentation perspective, the fact that a target-group is
>> a target under the cover should be de-emphasized IMHO.
>
> I wonder what sort of difference between target and target-group
> people see, I don't seem to get it, sorry.
>
> Stefan
>

I'm not sure exactely of what sort of difference I see (normal because
we didn't manage to define it), but here my "feeling" about the
difference :
- There is a difference of granularity.
- Between targets, you have a relations of prerequisites.  A target
depends on things being produced by other target (that the dependee
target knows).
- Between targets and target-group, you have an idea of 'PartOf'
relationship (with only the part having knowledge of its group).


-- 
Gilles Scokart

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


Mime
View raw message