> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not sure that adding an as-attribute make sense for <extends>. > > In our POC you can "import" with <use> mode the same file with different > > prefix. exemple : > > <project name="Abstract-Module"> > > ... > > </project> > > > > <project name="Concret-Module1"> > > <use file="Abstract-Module" as "AbstractModuleConcret1"/> > > ... > > </project> > > > > <project name="Concret-Module2"> > > <use file="Abstract-Module" as "AbstractModuleConcret2"/> > > ... > > </project> > > > > <project name="genericBuild"> > > <extends file="Concret-Module1"/> > > <extends file="Concret-Module2"/> > > </project> > > What I've argued before is that the 'as' attribute used by a build > should only be visible to that build. Any other build that uses it > (English meaning of use :) should not be aware of this attribute. This > way both Concrete-Model1 and 2 can use the same as, and it's > genericBuild that's then forced to use two different 'as' attributes > for them to be able to distinguish them. > > It's analogs to Java's inheritance, where a derived class can only > refer explicitly to its direct parent's methods, and not any of its > ancestors (like in C++). In other words, you can only bypass the > normal virtual dispatch of method if it's a method of your parent. > > There's no reason for genericBuild to directly reference > Abstract-Module. Abstract-Module basically became "part-of" > Concret-Module1 and 2, and is invisible to genericBuild, unless > genericBuild also directly import/includes it. > > Failing to do this, you couldn't safely refactor Concrete-Module1 and > 2, without possibly breaking genericBuild.
I think this is a good idea, even if i have no idea of how to implement it. Maybe we can improve "target visibility" (something close to private / public). Project help should be able to display "public" target of a given submodule. > > > Ah, it looks to me that I'm again failing to get my view across. Since > I'm no longer actively using Ant like I used to, I'll take a step back > and stop arguing the above points, which are probably incompatible > with the (simplistic?) way Ant deals with import and target addressing > (by simple prefixing). I'm really interested by your point of view :), maybe because you seems to be on of those who tries to "faire avancer le schmilblick" comme on dis chez nous ;) > - <use> is like a "Rich" <import> that support namespace and that allow > > you to import many time the same build script with different namespace. > > And I thought use was like an include ;) i.e. less than import, while > it's actually more. --DD
