On 11/17/06, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Both of these are kind of interesting. Personally, while I like the short syntax for typing, the long one for XML work. My main issue with the current mapping is that I always use ',' as the separator, not ';', because that is how ant breaks things up.
The ',' is used to separate configurations in the same mapping, while ';' is used to separate mappings. Example: compile,runtime->runtime,option1 means that both runtime and option1 confs of the dependency are required in both compile and runtime of the module compile;test,runtime->default means that compile is required in compile and default required in both test and runtime Xavier but I can
also see that it isnt long before the mapping string becomes very long indeed.
-Steve
Maarten Coene wrote: > There is already a (limited) possibility to express the configuration mapping with XML elements: > > <dependency ...> > <conf name="from1" mapped="to1,to2"> > <conf name="from2"> > <mapped name="to3" /> > <mapped name="to4" /> > </conf> > </dependency> > > See also http://www.jayasoft.org/ivy/doc/ivyfile/dependency-conf > > regards, > Maarten > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: easyproglife <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: ivy-dev <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 7:09:34 PM > Subject: New XML syntax suggestion for configured dependencies > > Hi. > > I want to share you with my thought about ivy.xml syntax: > > A powerful feature is the configuration feature and configuration mappings. > I find this feature very useful for my tasks. > > The problem is that from version to version it becomes more code-based and > less human readable. I am talking about the '*', '@', '->', '#' and other > codes inside 'conf' attribute. > > I wondered if we can use the power of XML to suggest an > "elements-and-attributes" approach where 'conf' attribute like: "compile, > runtime -> @; schema -> wsdl" for example would be written like (just a > suggestion): > > <dependency ....> > <conf> > <from>compile</from> > <from>runtime</from> > <to conf="same"/> > </conf> > <conf> > <from>schema</from> > <to>wsdl</to> > </conf> > </dependency> > > Yes, it is longer, I can see that, but the benefits are: > 1. It is pure XML approach - great for parsers, XSLTs, etc. > 2. It is more human readable. No need to remember all the 'conf' codes and > tokens. Good for newbies. > > Of course you can keep the old syntax as well, the same way you did with > 'organization' and 'organisation' for example. Every one could choose the > way he prefer. > > What do you think? > > easyproglife
