Coming into this thread I didn't really have an opinion, but I like this
reasoning. +1 for both.
Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
Well, the main use case I see of target groups is about using them between
different build scripts, as also noted in the documentation Stefan just
wrote. So the extension
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:00:53 -0500, Sandu Turcan atur...@gmail.com
wrote:
On the other hand the term extension point sounds generic and appears
to accept anything the system operates on, like tasks, types, targets,
dependencies etc.
In this case we're only talking about targets.
I think a
On Dec 20, 2009, at 11:10 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2009-12-19, Gilles Scokart gscok...@gmail.com wrote:
But still I would take the risk to turn this thread into a
brainstorming :
absolutely.
What about extension-point ?
Sounds good.
I don't think I weighed in on
On the other hand the term extension point sounds generic and appears
to accept anything the system operates on, like tasks, types, targets,
dependencies etc.
In this case we're only talking about targets.
I think a more explicit term that has the word target in it would work better.
On Mon, Dec
On 2009-12-19, Gilles Scokart gscok...@gmail.com wrote:
But still I would take the risk to turn this thread into a brainstorming :
absolutely.
What about extension-point ?
Sounds good.
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On 2009-12-19, Sandu Turcan idls...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm wondering if introducing a new name can be avoided alltogether.
What if depends=prefix* meant depends on all targets that start with
prefix?
For example:
target name=compile depends=precompile-*
/target
Wouldn't that achieve
How about some thing like
target name= category=/
or
category name=/
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Naming-of-target-group-tp26844828p26854047.html
Sent from the Ant - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com
On Dec 19, 2009, at 8:00 AM, Gilles Scokart wrote:
2009/12/18 Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org
Hi all
I've been responsible for too many bad naming choices to try to
come up
with something new here. I've collected the names that I recall
being
proposed, but I may have missed some and
Hi all
I've been responsible for too many bad naming choices to try to come up
with something new here. I've collected the names that I recall being
proposed, but I may have missed some and the choices may not be good
anyway.
I understand that (2) is very dependent on (1).
(1) What do we want
I understand that (2) is very dependent on (1).
(1) What do we want to call the new element that behaves quite a bit
like a target but has a dependency list that can be extended?
- moving-target (very familiar for people working in IT)
or
- mutable-target ?
(a) target-group
(b)
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
Hi all
I've been responsible for too many bad naming choices to try to come up
with something new here. I've collected the names that I recall being
proposed, but I may have missed some and the choices may not be good
anyway.
I understand that (2) is very dependent on
I have to say, I think goal is semantically reasonable--that said I
would want to use it. Let's just say I'd like to emphasize the
dissimiliarities between Ant and Maven. ;) phase is not terrible,
but seems to imply that a buildfile represents a single story which
is not always the
On 2009-12-18, Kevin Jackson foamd...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand that (2) is very dependent on (1).
(1) What do we want to call the new element that behaves quite a bit
like a target but has a dependency list that can be extended?
- moving-target (very familiar for people working in
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:12:25 +0100, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org
wrote:
Hi all
I've been responsible for too many bad naming choices to try to come up
with something new here. I've collected the names that I recall being
proposed, but I may have missed some and the choices may not be
14 matches
Mail list logo
