Dominique Devienne wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Bruce Atherton <bruce@callenish.com> wrote:
>
>> Can anyone give a concrete example where there would be a problem treating a
>> target-group as if it were a target?
>>
>
> Can't. But my thinking is that we should ere on the conservative side
> when we introduce such a feature, and that it's easier to open it up
> later on to all targets with no BC issues, than closing it up because
> real world issues crop up, with BC issues. I really do believe that
> having target-group (or whatever the final name) purely abstract
> encourages better reusable build design by forcing to think in terms
> of the build's "public API" that provides clean "hooks" for reusable
> implementation-specific pieces to tack on. But as usual I seem to be
> in the minority and I certainly won't be casting any blocking votes on
> the matter. --DD
>
I also prefer to keep the target-group as they currently are to keep
them simple. This is mostly a gut's feeling.
I am also interested to see soon a release of ant 1.8.0, so that the
community can enjoy the hundreds of bug fixes and improvements which are
contained in our current codebase.
Regards,
Antoine
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
|