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 doesn't > provide any composition. [...] What do you think this: > <target name="foo" dependencies="open"/> > <target name="bar" join-depends="foo"/>
Like in a SQL join you mean? ;) > But I'm not good at finding names, so maybe I should just go back to my work > :-) Frankly I think the Maven terminology of a "goal" is appropriate here. The fact that a goal is implemented as a target that has no tasks is an impl detail. I think it easier that a goal is a higher level abstraction that the target, and that target can choose to participate into one and only one goal. Whether goals themselves should only depend on goals might be a good idea. Goals would define the "abstract interface" to the build system and logic, and targets become its implementation. As I wrote, a target can belong to only a single goal, but can depend on targets or goals, as long as the DAG is acyclic. My $0.02, I just can't resist when the discussion turns to finding good names! --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
