2008/11/19 Bruce Atherton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I think that summary does the job nicely. The only other topic I saw brought > up on this thread was whether a target-group should be allowed to have tasks > in it rather than requiring it to be empty. This can also be discussed > separately, though, if people feel strongly enough about it. >
There is 2 other topics : - What about the build events? - What about the if/unless? Concerning the build events, It looks a very nice feature, but digging deeper I fear it doesn't work : <project> <target-group name="foo"/> <target-group name="bar" depends="bar"/> <target name="init" target-group ="foo,bar"/> </project> In which group do you have init executed? The current interpretation is "targets are not executed inside a group, they are executed before the group is executed". A more interresting example is : <project> <target-group name="foo"/> <target-group name="bar" depends="bar"/> <target name="a" target-group ="bar"/> <target name="b" depends="a" target-group ="foo"/> </project> The execution sequence will be a , b , foo , bar. This illustrates the view target-group is a group of targets inside which the targets are executed is wrong, and thus my idea of having events was wrong. Perhaps we should rename the concepts to not give the impression that this is something 'inside' which you can plug target. What about 'milestone', 'step', 'dynamic-target', 'goal' (who said 'phase'?). Concerning the if/unless, however, I still like the idea. Maybe the targets having a target-group should copy the if/unless of their target-group? (problem comes when there are multiple if/unless...) -- Gilles Scokart --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
