On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:00 AM, Remie Bolte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the explanation, it indeed seems to be a nice feature, however my > first concern would be the order of execution.
It's no different from the current behavior Remie. target-groups or phases are indeed just like target dependency injection (good analogy Jeffrey!). By declaring your target to be part of a given group, you are indeed adding yourself as an *unordered* dependency on that phase (which is just like a body-less target), but as you target you still have dependencies, on other targets *or* target groups which will be what dictates the ordering. If you specify your dependencies correctly, the order will be correct. That's always been the case, and target groups don't change that. As a separate note, it's bad practice IMHO to rely on dependencies to execute in the order a target specifies them. You should think in terms of requirements for the target to complete successfully, and not worry about the order. There's even a custom target executor that removes the default Ant behavior to honor the order of the direct dependencies and simply relies on the DAG topological sort, which is the way to go in fact. --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
