On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Bruce Atherton <br...@callenish.com> wrote: > Can anyone give a concrete example where there would be a problem treating a > target-group as if it were a target?
Can't. But my thinking is that we should ere on the conservative side when we introduce such a feature, and that it's easier to open it up later on to all targets with no BC issues, than closing it up because real world issues crop up, with BC issues. I really do believe that having target-group (or whatever the final name) purely abstract encourages better reusable build design by forcing to think in terms of the build's "public API" that provides clean "hooks" for reusable implementation-specific pieces to tack on. But as usual I seem to be in the minority and I certainly won't be casting any blocking votes on the matter. --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
