Rather than having a specific <private-target/> element, could this not be achieved via a naming convention such as "-target-name" (the leading "-" actually makes the target uninvocable from the command line anyway and therefore pretty good and private from the CLI point-of-view)?
Or even a new attribute on target that indicates that it is "private"? Phil :n. On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 17:18 +0100, Peter Reilly wrote: > Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > > >Just to put closure in my list of peeves about <import>, > >I really think we need a way to define "private" targets. > > > > > +1, one should be able to write an importable build file that has > some exported targets - but internally uses targets that do not get > overwritten accidently. > > Peter > > >Now, for this to work properly, you need: > > > >1) A way to mark a target as private. > >2) private targets must be ignored by targets of the same names on other > > > >points in the hierarchy. > >3) Depends on a private target must be resolved by the correct instance > >of the target. > > > >So lets assume the following syntax: > > > > <private-target name="..." depends="....">...</private-target> > > > >foo.xml > ><project name="foo1"> > > <target name="compile" depends="setup"><echo > >message="compiling"/></target> > ></project> > > > >bar.xml > ><project name="bar1"> > > <import file="foo.xml" as="f"/> > > <target name="build" depends="setup"><echo > >message="building"/></target> > > <private-target name="setup"><echo message="prepare > >build"/></private-target> > ></project> > > > >baz.xml > ><project name="baz1"> > > <import file="bar.xml" as="b"/> > > <target name="setup"><echo message="prepare compile"/> > ></project> > > > >ant compile > > prepare compile > > compiling > > > >ant build > > prepare build > > building > > > >Here: > >foo.xml is like an abstract project which does not define "setup"; > >bar.xml's setup is private to bar1 and will not be used by the > >dependency in foo1 > >baz.xml overrides (defines in this case) the setup target used in foo1 > >but not the one in bar1. > > > >The rewriting rules are a bit tricky, because for every private target > >you need to use a new "private name" for it, and change all the > >occurencies > >in dependencies on that file of the name, for the new name. > > > >Seems actually doable. > > > >Jose Alberto > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
