On 2009-12-09, Nicolas Lalevée <nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org> wrote: > Well, the title of this mail is referencing [1],
The short summary: it was discussed whether target-groups should be allowed to contain tasks. I then mused whether we should do away with target-group completely and make target's depend attribute extensible just like the one of current target-group is. > I have a "build system" to maintain, shared between several different > kind of project, simple java ones, webapp ones, flex app ones, flex > lib ones, webservice ones, etc... All of these projects share the same > release process and dependency management (Ivy of course ;) ). So I > have a common-build.xml, a common-build-java.xml, a > common-build-webapp.xml, a common-build-flex, etc... > There is some sort of inheritance between those build scripts: > common-build-java.xml depends on common-build.xml, > common-build-webapp.xml depends on common-build.java, etc... I have a > "dist" target in common-build which expect things to be build before > being published with Ivy. Then in common-build-java I have targets to > build jars, and "dist" is overridden so "dist" depends on the targets > that build jars: <target name="dist" > depends="jar,sources,common-build.dist" /> In common-build-webapp > "dist" is overridden so it depends on the target that build a war. In > common-build-flex "dist" is overridden so it depends on the target > that build a swf. > And here comes the trouble: multi "inheritance" doesn't work well. Yes. I think this is the exact reason for target-groups. <import>'s target overriding doesn't work well and it is a lot easier to inject your own targets into depends lists than to override existing targets and ensure you get the original depends lists right. > But using target groups expect me to know which part of the > common-build can be extended. It takes planning 8-) > To conclude, I don't know if opening up targets dependency can be that > useful, I think your post makes a point that there are targets that are designed to be extended and others that are not. If we removed the target-group and made all depends lists modifiable, we'd lose a way to signal which targets are to be extended and which not (not that we had such a mechanism before target-group was introduced). > Now thinking loud, maybe a simple attribute on target like > dependencies="public" would also fit ? Likely coupled with changing the current target-group name. Only thinking loudly as well we could turn <target-group name="foo"/> <target name="bar" target-group="foo"/> into <target name="foo" dependencies="public"/> <target name="bar" before-targets="foo"/> and would do away with any notion of target composition people way expect from the name target-*group*. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
