I'm -1 to rename ivy:settings into ivy:loadsettings. If you realy want something like that, then it would be better to go back to the ivy:configure (and I would be -0.5).
The reason I think ivy:settings should be a data-type (or look like a data type) is because every ant task are "standalone". I don't know any example of 2 tasks that should be executed one after the other, while it is usual to have an ant task depending on a pre-declared datatype. An other way to say that is that every tasks are "stateless". The only exceptions is the properties task, which for me look like a data declaration. That's why Ant is a declarative langage, and not a procedural langage. I consider ivy:configure "command" as a procedural command and not a declarative one. Now, I agree that the declarative aproach leas to some issues. One of them is that the datatype are curently always processed lazily (the first time they are used) and thus the errors are also reported lazily, which make the debuging more complex. Anyway, even if I like the suggestion of Dominique (the user that don't want to put a settingsRef should use ivy:configure in BC mode), it has a drawback. If the user forget to put its settingsRef, he will not receive any error message, the code will run with the default settings, even if an other settings is defined. This lead to problem difficult to debug. Gilles On 29/03/2008, Xavier Hanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Maarten Coene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Can't we just deprecate the "id" attribute on the settings task and use > > the settingsId attribute instead? > > > > id is handled by Ant itself, in the core. I don't think you can deprecate > > it. > > > I think we would deprecate the usage we do of id, not really the attribute > itself. And I don't think we even really need to deprecate it, the usage of > id like it is used today has been introduced in 2.0 alphas and betas, so > with no guarantee that it won't change. > > > > > > And that doesn't change the fact that <settings> should be a datatype > > rather than a task. --DD > > > I'm still not sure if settings "should" be a datatype. Maybe the name makes > thinks it should be a datatype. If we call it loadsettings instead, I think > it still make sense to make it a task. Exactly as resolve is a task, and > allow with resolveId to set the id of the resolve report it generates and is > later used by other tasks like retrieve. Making resolve a datatype would > really not make any sense IMO, since what people expect when calling is > actually to resolve dependencies. We can consider it's the same thing with > settings/loadsettings. It's kind of similar to the property task when you > use the file attribute: it loads a property file and sets a set of > properties. It has a side effect for other tasks, but it's still a task, not > a datatype. > > So maybe renaming settings in loadsettings and renaming id in settingsId > would be a pretty good solution for 2.0: it give us the opportunity to later > add a settings datatype, which loadsettings is only responsible for loading. > And we don't have the 'id' bad usage anymore. > > WDYT? > > > Xavier > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > -- > Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant > http://xhab.blogspot.com/ > http://ant.apache.org/ivy/ > http://www.xoocode.org/ > -- Gilles Scokart --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
