Re: Maybe we should open up depends for all targets [again]

2009-12-22 Thread Jean-Louis Boudart
You're right. Initially in EasyAnt we wanted to find a way to define lifecycles. A lifecycle is composed by a sequence of generic steps (what we've called phase). Then we could play with additional script (plugins) that can be bind to a phase. Again the idea was to make genericity in our build

Re: Maybe we should open up depends for all targets [again]

2009-12-16 Thread Nicolas Lalevée
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:03:45 +0100, Jean-Louis Boudart jeanlouis.boud...@gmail.com wrote: How about: target-inteface name=foo/ target name=bar implements=foo/ /me run and hides! 2009/12/12 Nicolas Lalevée nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:51:30 -0600, Dominique

Re: Maybe we should open up depends for all targets [again]

2009-12-16 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On 2009-12-16, Nicolas Lalevée nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org wrote: In EasyAnt there is already this notion of phase. But I see no real conflict with not supporting target groups in Ant. EasyAnt could just implement phases as targets, it would be just an implementation detail. AFAIU EasyAnt uses

Re: Maybe we should open up depends for all targets [again]

2009-12-12 Thread Nicolas Lalevée
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:51:30 -0600, Dominique Devienne ddevie...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Xavier Hanin xavier.ha...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/10 Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org and would do away with any notion of target composition people way expect from the name

Re: Maybe we should open up depends for all targets [again]

2009-12-11 Thread Xavier Hanin
2009/12/10 Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org On 2009-12-09, Nicolas Lalevée nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org wrote: [...] Now thinking loud, maybe a simple attribute on target like dependencies=public would also fit ? Likely coupled with changing the current target-group name. Only

Re: Maybe we should open up depends for all targets [again]

2009-12-11 Thread Dominique Devienne
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Xavier Hanin xavier.ha...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/10 Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org and would do away with any notion of target composition people way expect from the name target-*group*. I also think the name target-group is confusing for something that

Re: Maybe we should open up depends for all targets [again]

2009-12-11 Thread Bruce Atherton
Xavier Hanin wrote: 2009/12/10 Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org target name=foo dependencies=public/ target name=bar before-targets=foo/ and would do away with any notion of target composition people way expect from the name target-*group*. I also think the name target-group is

Re: Maybe we should open up depends for all targets [again]

2009-12-10 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On 2009-12-09, Nicolas Lalevée nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org wrote: Well, the title of this mail is referencing [1], The short summary: it was discussed whether target-groups should be allowed to contain tasks. I then mused whether we should do away with target-group completely and make target's

Maybe we should open up depends for all targets [again]

2009-12-09 Thread Nicolas Lalevée
Well, the title of this mail is referencing [1], as announced I was thinking that we should, but after gathering my ideas and writing this email, I am not so sure. So was introduced lately the concept of target group in Ant. I found it quite interesting as it would help writing sharable ant

Re: Maybe we should open up depends for all targets

2008-11-21 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On 2008-11-20, Dominique Devienne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: target-group is-a target. A plain target is a target as opposed to a target-group. Since I have conceptualized them in my head as something different than

Re: Maybe we should open up depends for all targets

2008-11-21 Thread Gilles Scokart
2008/11/21 Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 2008-11-20, Dominique Devienne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: target-group is-a target. A plain target is a target as opposed to a target-group. Since I have conceptualized

Maybe we should open up depends for all targets

2008-11-20 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On 2008-11-20, Dominique Devienne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2008-11-19, Bruce Atherton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only other topic I saw brought up on this thread was whether a target-group should be allowed to

Re: Maybe we should open up depends for all targets

2008-11-20 Thread Dominique Devienne
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: target name=a/ target name=b target-group=a/ [OT] I recently was thinking that target ... target-group=... / is heavy. I think using target ... group=... / is just as expressive. The *only* differences between target

Re: Maybe we should open up depends for all targets

2008-11-20 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On 2008-11-20, Dominique Devienne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The *only* differences between target and target-group in trunk are: * target-groups must be empty I like that. * you cannot use the target-group attribute

Re: Maybe we should open up depends for all targets

2008-11-20 Thread Dominique Devienne
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: target-group is-a target. A plain target is a target as opposed to a target-group. Since I have conceptualized them in my head as something different than targets, I forget that implementation-wise they remain targets. I