Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 35565 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2009 16:05:20 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Dec 2009 16:05:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 27435 invoked by uid 500); 16 Dec 2009 16:05:04 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 27036 invoked by uid 500); 16 Dec 2009 16:05:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 26934 invoked by uid 99); 16 Dec 2009 16:05:04 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:05:04 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: softfail (athena.apache.org: transitioning domain of nicolas.lalevee@hibnet.org does not designate 216.86.168.183 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.86.168.183] (HELO mxout-08.mxes.net) (216.86.168.183) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:05:01 +0000 Received: from wm2.irbs.net (wm2.irbs.net [216.86.168.169]) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C92D509DE for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:04:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from wmbeta.mxes.net (wm2.irbs.net [216.86.168.169]) by wm2.irbs.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6C2218512B for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:04:39 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from AOrleans-158-1-41-214.w90-44.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.44.172.214] with HTTP/1.1 (POST); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:04:39 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:04:39 -0500 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Nicolas_Lalev=C3=A9e?= To: Ant Developers List Subject: Re: [POLL] target-groups In-Reply-To: <255d8d690912160651m412fef1m275f9b1ad2cc0926@mail.gmail.com> References: <873a3dycgk.fsf@v35516.1blu.de> <4B283D95.2010900@callenish.com> <255d8d690912160651m412fef1m275f9b1ad2cc0926@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: nicolas.lalevee@hibnet.org User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.3-stable Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:51:27 -0600, Dominique Devienne wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Bruce Atherton > 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