I agree that it doesn't make it right, however, it makes it a point to consider.
One might even argue that the two do not exclude each other: in the current implementation an order depending design pattern and a DAG implementation can co-exist. Personally I would not vote for enforcing either design pattern for I think both have merit. Hence I also believe that it would serve the community to enable the possibility of ordered execution in the target-group / phase element. Maybe not as default behavior, but as additional feature. It doesn't make it right, but it probably will makes someones life a bit easier :) -r On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Jeffrey E Care <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Remie Bolte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/12/2008 11:42:05 AM: > > > > 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. > > > > There is one change: the current Ant behavior is to respect the order in > > which dependencies are set. The phase as currently proposed does not > deal > > with this, making it only usable in certain use cases. > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but AFAIK there's nothing in the > documentation that states target dependencies will be executed in the > order listed. The fact that the default executor respects the order is a > side effect of the implementation, not a guaranteed behavior. > > The fact that many projects do in fact rely on target dependencies being > executed in listed order doesn't make it right.
