Mailing-List: contact ivy-user-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ivy-user@ant.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of xavier.hanin@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.198.187 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=VtHEBP623q7tdXKaaQ7yS9Iafw8qSrpXnPZcTIto6eVB0SQlqY/wruT0oMYed53EqVbb0Z08fVMIJ0pstBb9YNMqLbJb2FpD3V1gR8y5qPHAS/+rvq2TsWeQkhBnX4RVPbmBv4Fu7bXAQ0uDASMX0Sir2ls5tsVawbsAUBzvucA=
Message-ID: <635a05060802280031r2f6e7d0dr3300094e6e9dbd69@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:31:28 +0100
From: "Xavier Hanin" <xavier.hanin@gmail.com>
To: ivy-user@ant.apache.org
Subject: Re: specify versions separate from dependencies
In-Reply-To: <20080227190515.GE47154@nmhq.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_14789_15551557.1204187488233"
References: <20080226184625.7decc0cd@sbs173> <20080227115305.1a40c042@sbs173>
	 <635a05060802270523i1512e901xc866a238388be697@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20080227160333.58eca9bc@sbs173>
	 <635a05060802270750o665fb7au97a03a1c5307c4b7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20080227155903.GA47154@nmhq.net>
	 <635a05060802270804t7ae37181j83abecc31a45c0d1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20080227174724.GC47154@nmhq.net>
	 <635a05060802270956x24e6618au69a916c4b586835f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20080227190515.GE47154@nmhq.net>

------=_Part_14789_15551557.1204187488233
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Niklas Matthies <ml_ivy-user@nmhq.net>
wrote:

> On Wed 2008-02-27 at 18:56h, Xavier Hanin wrote on ivy-user:
> :
> > Mm, we currently use dependencies/dependency only for direct
> > dependencies. And this is not a direct dependency. So I'd really
> > prefer to keep it separated, as the conflicts section.
>
> Scott Oster hits the nail on the head when he says that it's actually
> a revision constraint. It occurs to me that it might generally be
> helpful to distinguish between dependencies ("module A requires
> module B, period") and revision constraints ("module A only works with
> revisions x to y of module B (not necessarily implying that A requires
> B)").
>
> You might remember our discussion where I wanted (for the purpose of
> build reproducability) the earliest, rather than the latest, revision
> to be retrieved that matches specific version constraints. The problem
> there was as well that a corresponding conflict manager would only
> kick in when there's an actual conflict. Maybe what we really need is
> a "revision selector" which selects one or more revisions from the set
> of revisions that is the intersection between the set of revisions
> available in the repository and the set defined by the revision
> constraints. (This has aspects from both latest-strategy and conflict
> managers.) An actual conflict manager would only kick in when the set
> defined by the version constraints becomes empty, i.e. when there is a
> conflict between the *constraints* imposed by (different) dependent
> modules.

This sounds interesting. This requires more thinking, to see what could
really be achieved with that. I guess you already have a pretty good idea,
I'm looking forward to have more details about what you envision and the
associated use cases.

Xavier


>
>
> I need to think a bit about how this could be made efficient in terms
> of minimizing ivy file retrievals. (I'm pretty certain it can.)
>
> -- Niklas Matthies
>


-- 
Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
http://xhab.blogspot.com/
http://ant.apache.org/ivy/
http://www.xoocode.org/

------=_Part_14789_15551557.1204187488233--