ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dominique Devienne <ddevie...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Maybe we should open up "depends" for all targets [again]
Date Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:51:30 GMT
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Xavier Hanin <xavier.hanin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/12/10 Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org>
>> and would do away with any notion of target composition people way
>> expect from the name target-*group*.
> I also think the name target-group is confusing for something that doesn't
> provide any composition. [...] What do you think this:
> <target name="foo" dependencies="open"/>
> <target name="bar" join-depends="foo"/>

Like in a SQL join you mean? ;)

> But I'm not good at finding names, so maybe I should just go back to my work :-)

Frankly I think the Maven terminology of a "goal" is appropriate here.
The fact that a goal is implemented as a target that has no tasks is
an impl detail. I think it easier that a goal is a higher level
abstraction that the target, and that target can choose to participate
into one and only one goal. Whether goals themselves should only
depend on goals might be a good idea. Goals would define the "abstract
interface" to the build system and logic, and targets become its
implementation. As I wrote, a target can belong to only a single goal,
but can depend on targets or goals, as long as the DAG is acyclic.

My $0.02, I just can't resist when the discussion turns to finding
good names! --DD

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


Mime
View raw message