On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:19:55 +0100, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote: > before we get carried away with naming discussions ... > > Currently I don't feel there is consensus of what we'd like to see with > target-group (if anything at all). The options I see are > > * have some sort of composite of targets that other targets can add > themselves to > > * have some special construct that has a depends list similar to > target. targets can depend on such a construct and add themselves > to the depends list (the current code base). > > * allow targets to add themselves to the depends lists of any other > target
As I explained in the other thread, I finally think this is the simpler solution. > * allow targets to add themselves to the depends lists of targets that > in some way mark themselves as being open for such extensions I tend to prefer to keep it open by default, but I won't make any veto against it. For instance I have not the experience described by Bruce about finding "backwards chaining [being an] often (usually) surprising behaviour to the first time user, but once learned quickly becom[ing] second nature." Nicolas > * no target-group like construct at all > > * something completely different? > > What is your preference? > > Stefan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
