On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 2:16 AM, Hans Dockter <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would love to have a better name for configurations. Initially I just
> took this name from Ivy as I couldn't think of anything better. Even with
> Ivy I guess it is not a perfect name. But in the context of a build system
> it is really confusing.
>
> Mostly configurations are classpaths, but not always (e.g. they may contain
> distribution archives). Why not calling configurations paths?
>
> paths {
> compile "commons-io:commons-io:1.4"
> }
>
> paths.compile.files ...
>
Hans, I think this example is wrong, and was misleading me. Shouldn't it
be:
paths {
compile
}
dependencies {
compile "commons-io:commons-io:1.4"
}
paths.compile.files ...
Or were you assuming the merging of those separate closures? (I would love
to see them merged, BTW.)
I like using the word "dependencies" to describe a project's dependencies,
not the word "paths". This would make the last line be
dependencies.compile.files which, while not a pretty phrase, does tie it in
nicely with the declaration.
--
John Murph
Automated Logic Research Team
