On 9 Apr 2014, at 5:23 am, Peter Niederwieser <[email protected]> wrote:
> All,
>
> as we are improving component metadata rules, we need a way for a rule to
> declare which metadata it is interested in. The current proposal is to do
> this via typed callback parameters. For example:
>
> dependencies {
> components {
> eachComponent { ComponentMetaDataDetails details,
> IvyModuleDescriptor descriptor -> ... }
> }
> }
>
> The rule above declares that it is interested in the generic metadata
> (`ComponentMetaDataDetails`) and Ivy specific metadata
> (`IvyModuleDescriptor`). Because it is interested in Ivy specific metadata,
> the rule will only fire for Ivy components.
>
> The set of potentially supported parameter types is open-ended. For example,
> future Gradle versions may support a `ArtifactoryProperties` parameter type.
>
> This raises some questions:
>
> * The above looks very much like a model rule. (`details` is the object to
> be mutated, `descriptor` is an input.) Should `eachComponent()` indeed
> accept a `ModelRule`, now or in the future?
I think so. It should accept whatever it is that ModelRule ends up looking
like. But we may change ModelRule so that it makes sense here as well.
> * If not, what should the Java API look like?
> * Do we want to generate the closure-based Groovy API from the Java API, now
> or in the future?
I think so, but possibly later, once we make a bit more progress on the general
purpose rules.
--
Adam Murdoch
Gradle Co-founder
http://www.gradle.org
VP of Engineering, Gradleware Inc. - Gradle Training, Support, Consulting
http://www.gradleware.com
Join us for Gradle Summit 2014, June 12th and 13th in Santa Clara, CA:
http://www.gradlesummit.com
