ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: EasyAnt <use>/<extends> vs <import>
Date Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:10:45 GMT
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Dominique Devienne <> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Stefan Bodewig <> wrote:
> > IIUC EasyAnt solits the two use-cases found for <import> into two
> > logical tasks.
> >
> > * you never want to override a target, you just want to reuse them: <use>
> That's an <include> to me. Rename <use> into <include>, and I'm +1,

I'm not bound to names.

> > EasyAnt also adds an as-attribute to <use> where the writer of the
> > importing build file can control the prefix of the <use>d targets and
> > overrules the <use>d project's name.  This makes sense IMHO.
> It does to me too :)
>> I'm not totally sure whether the as-attribute would make sense for
>> <extends> as well, EasyAnt currently silently ignores it in that case.
> It makes as much sense in <import> as it does in <include> to me, i.e.
> to restore proper compartmentalization of the builds.

I'd probably want to allow it for symmetry as well, but I haven't
thought through all implications.

> I don't think we should invent new terminology (use/extends) for
> something that already exists (import) and it's natural equivalent to
> use (include, which doesn't exist).

Then we need to stretch the difference.  Two new names would increas
awareness that <import> does something special.

> What's missing from the above is the notion of TargetGroup to
> implement the phase concept of EasyAnt (and Maven I guess).

True.  To me those concepts are orthogonal and I'd like to have
separate discussions on them (and picked this topic to be first).


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message