On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:51:27 -0600, Dominique Devienne <ddevie...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
That's what I thought too, it would help defining what is public and part of the API, which is one of my worry while maintaining the "build system" I presented earlier. But targets are all "public", properties are global too. So it seemed to me quite useless to try to restrict anything. Or perhaps we could say it is a first step towards enabling proper API specification in build scripts ? Nicolas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
