ant-ivy-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niklas Matthies <ml_ivy-u...@nmhq.net>
Subject Re: sources as conf or type
Date Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:15:32 GMT
On Wed 2009-10-28 at 13:29h, Mitch Gitman wrote on ivy-user:
> I think it's fair to say that the established best practice is to NOT make a
> separate Ivy conf for things like source or Javadoc.
> 
> For one thing, it becomes a transitive dependency nightmare to keep on
> having to create a source conf in your Ivy module and then have your source
> conf depend on its dependencies' source Ivy confs--which means you need to
> add source Ivy confs to those Ivy modules, and so on and so on.

Not sure I agree. You generally have to add a bunch of configurations
anyway (compile, runtime, api, test, javadoc, ...). For our in-house
modules, we have an XML file defining the common configurations and
mappings (it resides along the common build files which are initially
retrieved via Ivy as well), and just <include> that file into each
ivy.xml. And the mapping for the source configurations is just
source->source(default), no difficulties there.

Using just filetype, on the other hand, complicates things if you have
programmatic artifacts other than jar (ear, dll, ...). Then you'd have
to figure out the right list of types to retrieve all required
artifacts.

If I understand correctly, you always specify type="jar" when
retrieving programmatic artifacts? Or do you always retrieve the
source along with it, even when packaging?

And where do you put javadocs?

-- Niklas Matthies

Mime
View raw message