On Thursday 18 September 2003 13:00, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > Stefan Bodewig wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Jose Alberto Fernandez > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>First, <import/> makes absolute no sense to me inside a <target>. > >>The whole point of import was allowing for target-overriding. > >>I could understand having an <include/> in there, because is > >>textually expanding the file in place, which may make sense. > > > > There is no <include>, only <import> which does both. I've already > > voiced my preference for a "pure" <include> task. > > Stefan, IIRC there was consensus that we should add an extra include > task to only substitute entity includes. This to make it possible for > use cases like yours to work without worrying about the import > overriding capabilities. > > I don't have the time now, but I really think that if you or someone > else adds an include task to the list, nobody would object. Personally I > favor it, as adding a task does not take away from import.
I do not like the idea of having both an include and an import task. Using include/import within a target or a task-container task at the top-level is problematic if the imported/included file has targets. The reason is that these targets will not be included in the dependency check which is done after the call to PH2#parse(). I think we should allow import/include in targets or task-containers if the imported file does not have targets. I do not know if this is easy to achieve. Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
