Conceptually I agree with you, but I think we need to recognize why
people would want this and to validate their concerns.
Consider these targets:
<target name="full-build" depends="clean,compile,jar-files">...</target>
<target name="update-build" depends="compile,jar-files">...</target>
Whether or not "clean" is a dependency of "compile" depends on the
context "compile" is executed in. Now, it is possible to work around
this but I am fairly sure that using dependencies as described above is
a common implementation pattern for our users. I know that I have used
it in the past, and probably will again. Sacrilege, I know. :-)
For this specific feature, though, I don't believe the target-group
should have ordering added to it. Specifying an order would needlessly
complicate the use of the feature, as well as promoting behaviour that
we generally consider "bad" for build systems. Since there is a
workaround (providing ordering through the dependency tree), I think the
unordered solution is better.
But I wanted to make sure we fully understand the cost to our users of
leaving it unordered.
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
If you need a specific order of execution, you should ensure that your
depends attributes are correct. If target "a" must be run before
target "b" than "b" simply must depend upon "a".
This is true with normal targets and I don't see why target-groups
would change that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
