Xavier Hanin wrote:
Just pinging about this e-mail, I've had no answer so far, I think I can't
make the choice alone, and we need to deal with that question before
2.0final to close IVY-297. So, anyone has an opinion about this:
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Xavier Hanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi,
As reported by IVY-297, Ivy suffers from some name inconsistencies and
strange attribute names. Ivy 2.0 is a good opportunity to fix some of
them, since I think we can afford some more deprecation warnings.
So I'd like to fix IVY-297 by marking allownomd as deprecated, and
providing a descriptor="required | optional" attribute.
To go further, we could rename the attribute skipbuildwithoutivy in
buildlist in skipbuildwithoutdescriptor, or even better change it to
buildwithoutdescriptor="skip | fail | warn | tail | head", which wold make
it both more readable and more powerful.
s/buildwithoutdescriptor/missing-descriptor ? onMissingDescriptor ?
imnotgenerallyabigfanofwordsgluedtogetherwithoutseparator when it it's
more then 2 words (onchange, on..)
OtherwiseThereIsCamelCaseButThisIsUglyTooForXml
Another area where the name 'ivy' is used to talk about module descriptors
in general is patterns. This lead to some strange settings, where you give
an 'ivy' pattern to tell where the poms are. In this case I think we could
support both 'ivy' and 'descriptor' (for resolver patterns for instance),
since the use case for ivy files is still predominant, so I don't think
deprecating the old name would really be better.
So, what do you think about these changes?
I guess if you want to make it it's probably 2.0 or never... there's
already a lot of deprecated right now and it will get more difficult to
push them in later.
After all it's a 2.0
-- stephane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
