I'll second that. I found it pretty confusing and honestly still am not 100% sure of how it works.
-----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Blattman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 1:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Configurations really hard to understand i've never needed Ivy configurations. i need what maven has, and that's how i tried to apply it. i always understood configurations to be a generalized version of maven scopes as you are calling them. in fact i think i read that someone in the ivy docs. all i want to do is 1. define a config 2. be able to associate a config w/ a dependency 3. be able to reference the dependencies by config name in ivy:resolve, retrieve, cachpath, etc i.e., configs are just a grouping of dependencies. it just seems like configurations could be greatly simplified to do the above and still handle 98% of the use cases. you don't need to "->" syntax do this for example. Xavier Hanin wrote: > On 8/15/07, Jeffrey Blattman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> i don't mean to rain on dmitry's great explanation, but i think this >> might be the crux of the problem. there is one way to do it on maven, >> and no one has any questions about it. i to was / am confused by >> configurations in Ivy. >> > > > Not sure to get what you are meaning. Do you mean that we should only > provide one way to specify configuration mapping, or that we should simply > not provide flexible configuration mapping as we do? Maven has no concept of > configuration, they have scopes which are predefined and do not allow things > as flexible as you can do with Ivy. But maybe providing an easy to use > configuration mapping in Ivy could help users who don't want to take care > about understanding the real flexibility of configurations. > > Xavier > > Dmitriy Korobskiy wrote: > >>> 2. How to specify this mapping? There are many ways in Ivy to do it. >>> >> Let's start >> >>> with explicit abbreviated mapping for each dependency: >>> >>> >>> > > > >
