ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicolas Lalevée <nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org>
Subject Re: [POLL] target-groups
Date Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:04:39 GMT
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:51:27 -0600, Dominique Devienne
<ddevienne@gmail.com> 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.

That's what I thought too, it would help defining what is public and part
of the API, which is one of my worry while maintaining the "build system" I
presented earlier. But targets are all "public", properties are global too.
So it seemed to me quite useless to try to restrict anything.
Or perhaps we could say it is a first step towards enabling proper API
specification in build scripts ?

Nicolas


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


Mime
View raw message