Xavier Hanin wrote:
> Just pinging about this e-mail, I've had no answer so far, I think I can't
> make the choice alone, and we need to deal with that question before
> 2.0final to close IVY-297. So, anyone has an opinion about this:
>
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Xavier Hanin <xavier.hanin@(protected)>
> wrote:
>  
>> Hi,
>>
>> As reported by IVY-297, Ivy suffers from some name inconsistencies and
>> strange attribute names. Ivy 2.0 is a good opportunity to fix some of
>> them, since I think we can afford some more deprecation warnings.
>>
>> So I'd like to fix IVY-297 by marking allownomd as deprecated, and
>> providing a descriptor="required | optional" attribute.
>>
>> To go further, we could rename the attribute skipbuildwithoutivy in
>> buildlist in skipbuildwithoutdescriptor, or even better change it to
>> buildwithoutdescriptor="skip | fail | warn | tail | head", which wold make
>> it both more readable and more powerful.
>>  
s/buildwithoutdescriptor/missing-descriptor ? onMissingDescriptor ?
imnotgenerallyabigfanofwordsgluedtogetherwithoutseparator when it it's
more then 2 words (onchange, on..)
OtherwiseThereIsCamelCaseButThisIsUglyTooForXml

>> Another area where the name 'ivy' is used to talk about module descriptors
>> in general is patterns. This lead to some strange settings, where you give
>> an 'ivy' pattern to tell where the poms are. In this case I think we could
>> support both 'ivy' and 'descriptor' (for resolver patterns for instance),
>> since the use case for ivy files is still predominant, so I don't think
>> deprecating the old name would really be better.
>>
>> So, what do you think about these changes?
>>  
I guess if you want to make it it's probably 2.0 or never... there's
already a lot of deprecated right now and it will get more difficult to
push them in later.
After all it's a 2.0

-- stephane

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@(protected)
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@(protected)