Missed a word:
On Wed 20090415 at 19:07h, Niklas Matthies wrote on ivyuser:
> I'm not sure that dependencies on intersections of configurations are
> welldefined with regard to transitive dependencies. Suppose that A
> depends on the intersection of B and C, and B depends on D, and C on
> E. Now does that mean that A transitively depends on the union of D
> and E, or on their intersection? Or is the intersection of the
> _dependencies_ of B and C taken, which would mean neither of D and E?
>
> If you say "intersection", then you probably get too few artifacts. If
> you say "union", then it begs the question whether the intersection
> was really an intersection. Also, with "union", if you decide to turn
> B and C into "virtual" modules and move their to B' and C', with B>B'
^
artifacts
> and C>C', then suddenly someone depending on the intersection of B
> and C will get the union of the artifacts from B' and C' instead of
> their intersection.
>
> It seems to me that for welldefined and robust intersection semantics,
> Ivy would need to know the actual dependencies on the artifact level,
> so that it can accurately determine the dependencies of arbitrary
> artifact (sub)sets.
>
>  Niklas Matthies
>
> On Wed 20090415 at 10:49h, Shawn Castrianni wrote on ivyuser:
> > I see. I assumed the wildcard usage was only applicable to the
> > dependency tags where you are trying to use configurations. You are
> > saying that configuration declarations themselves can also use the
> > wildcards. This should work, however, I still prefer my design. It
> > just feels more elegant and powerful by allowing full Boolean
> > operations with configurations (union, intersection, difference,
> > etc). But yes, your approach would be less of an impact to others.
> >
> > 
> > Shawn Castrianni
> >
> > Original Message
> > From: Niklas Matthies [mailto:ml_ivyuser@nmhq.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 5:23 AM
> > To: ivyuser@ant.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: configuration help
> >
> > On Wed 20090415 at 04:48h, Shawn Castrianni wrote on ivyuser:
> > > I suppose that would work, but I think allowing "configuration
> > > intersection" where a module declares a dependence on the
> > > intersection of 2 or more configurations of another module is a
> > > cleaner approach. Your wildcard approach would require lots of
> > > configurations for all permutations of all axis to be declared which
> > > might clutter up the ivy.xml file.
> >
> > Ok, I skimped over the details. The intent of my approach was exactly
> > that you wouldn't have to declare all combinations, and instead can
> > use wildcards when declaring configurations and artifacts. This means
> > that the set of concrete configurations is potentially openended,
> > yes, because anything matching the wildcards is admissible. The point
> > of this approach is that it retains the property that dependencies are
> > still defined just in terms of singular configurations, not
> > intersections of configurations or whatnot. This likely makes it
> > easier to implement, would affect less other code and hence be more
> > robust.
> >
> >  Niklas Matthies
>
 Niklas Matthies
