On Aug 25, 2009, at 5:38 PM, John Murph wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 2:16 AM, Hans Dockter <m...@dockter.biz>
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"
}
Of course. Sorry for the mistake.
paths.compile.files ...
Or were you assuming the merging of those separate closures? (I
would love to see them merged, BTW.)
How would distinguish the creation of a configuration from a typo in
case things are merged?
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.
I see your point. But that would leave our terminology with
ambiguities. You would assign a dependency (current terminology) to a
dependency (a.k.a configuration). This problem would be also reflected
in code:
dependencies.compile.allDependencies
- Hans
--
Hans Dockter
Gradle Project Manager
http://www.gradle.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
