Cool... if someone read it wrong then by definition it's confusing and can be improved.
-Archie On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM, mjparme <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yeah, I think I am just reading it oddly. When you say "The ivy file > defining > the dependency" you are meaning the ivy file where the relationship to the > dependency is defined whereas I was reading it as the ivy file defining the > artifact of the dependency (i.e. the other ivy.xml file). > > I think that is where my disconnect was. > > I am probably just being a dumb ass, it happens on occasion. > > > > Archie Cobbs-3 wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 4:01 PM, mjparme <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> The reason the current verbiage of "master configuration (i.e. the > >> configuration of the module defining the dependency)" is confusing > >> because > >> it reads like it is talking about the ivy file that defines the > >> dependency. > >> Whereas the first sentence defines master configuration as the ivy file > >> of > >> the current module. > >> > > > > Seems like there's still confusion about what the docs intended to > mean... > > > > The ivy file defining the dependency *is* the ivy file of the current > > module. Here the word "dependency" is referring to a relationship between > > two modules. So there are three things being defined here: two modules > and > > a > > dependency. > > > > The dependency is defined inside the "master" module's ivy.xml file. The > > module being depended on is of course defined by it's ivy.xml file (i.e., > > the other ivy.xml file). So modules "know" what they depend on, but > > modules > > don't "know" who depends on them. > > > > -Archie > > > > -- > > Archie L. Cobbs > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/conf-mapping-documentation-contradicts-itself-tp28450261p28453344.html > Sent from the ivy-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- Archie L. Cobbs
