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:
