On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:10 PM, John Tamplin <j...@google.com> wrote:
> > How would you handle the following: > > A: include foo*.java, exclude b*.java > B: include bar*.java, exclude foobaz.java > > I am assuming your union would be the following: > > - all foo*.java > - all bar*.java > > Is that correct? > Close, but it'd actually include all foo*.java and all b*.java, not just bar*.java. But you probably knew that and just typo'ed.... It seems like maybe you would want to merge in the excludes as well so that > the most specific rule applies, which would remove foobaz.java from the > list. > No, I think that's wrong. A wants foobaz.java, so if B takes it away, then it breaks A, which my app needed. So either I should remove the inherits of A (in which case the problem goes away 'cause I didn't need A after all), or I need GWT to see the union of anything passed by *either* A *or* B. B can't yank the rug out from under A. This also means I don't believe in the "foobaz is toxic to me, keep it away at all costs" storyline for <excludes/>. I instead read <source ...><excludes/></source> as "I need ... but don't care about ...," which leaves the option for some other module A to pull in the files that it needs but B didn't care about. Find me a counter-example and I'll change my mind, but I think the "toxic" interpretation of <excludes/> introduces a new error case (B removing what A wants) without solving an actual problem (if foobaz is toxic, it's toxic to everybody, not just B, and A can have no legitimate usecase for it). -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
