On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Jean-Louis BOUDART < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > In addition, as we use target-group to have more "genericity" we > doesn't > > > want to have prefix on those "generic" targets. > > > > I'm afraid I don't understand this. > > > > One of your selling points for <include> was that the included build is > > self-contained and remains that way by prefixing all traget names and > > rewriting the depends lists. > > > > If we break that rule for some kind of target, the included build is > > suddenly open for modifications from the outside - including overrides > > of target-groups. > > > Again if we consider target-group as JUST a way to have target dependency > injection, this doesn't make sens. > In opposite if we consider that target-groups are toplevel target does't it > make sens to have prefix on target-group? > Example (using current HEAD revision): > Suppose you want to have a generic task called report > a.xml > <project name="A"> > <target name="javadoc" target-group="report" description="generate > javadoc"> > <echo>javadoc</echo> > </target> > ... > </project> > > b.xml > <project name="B"> > <target name="junitreport" target-group="report" description="generate > junit > report"> > <echo>junitreport</echo> > </target> > ... > </project> > > c.xml > <project name="C"> > <target name="emma-report" description="generate emma report" > target-group="report"> > <echo> emma report</echo> > </target> > ... > </project> > > phases.xml > <project name="phases"> > <target-group name="report" description="generate all report for your > project" /> > </project> > > build.xml > <project name="generic-build"> > <import file="phase.xml"/> > <include file="a.xml" as="javadoc"/> > <include file="b.xml" as="junit"/> > <include file="c.xml" as="emma"/> > </project> > > > If you try to use "ant report" : > you have this message > "can't add target javadoc.javadoc to target-group javadoc.report because > the > target-group is unknown." > > IMHO a target-group should NEVER be prefixed, in a module it's possible to > assign a target to a phase which is not declared in the build module. It > makes the module dependent on the caller to declare the phase prior to the > use call, and as such becomes a requirement of the module. > > I would like to bring more attention to this, because I think Jean-Louis makes a very good point here. IMO joining a target group for a target should be possible for a target group which is defined in a build file "including" the build file in which the target itself is defined. So maybe name resolution of a target-group when a target declares to join a target-group (with <target name="foo" target-group="bar" />) in an included file should first look for the prefixed name (as it is currently implemented) and then if it doesn't exist, try to look for the non prefixed name. WDYT? -- Xavier Hanin - 4SH France BordeauxJUG co leader - http://www.bordeauxjug.org/ Blogger - http://xhab.blogspot.com/ Apache Ivy Creator - http://ant.apache.org/ivy/
