| Re: [buckminster-dev] Action output? |
kenneth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Ah, ok. I misread you. You're back to what I was on to in my initial posting when I wrote "so that transitive invocations can be mapped on the fly". I thought that was considered too complex and hard to grasp. I'm still not convinced of the opposite. One might argue that there is only one namespace (the property namespace) and using it, sure, then you cause pollution. The somewhat harsh solution to it is to say that if you want action specific properties, then define them in the cspec.Yes there is. We simply state that if you want different properties (or output) for different actions, then issue multiple perform commands.Huh? It's not a question of multiple commands, it's about following a dependency chain during one command.Assume you have action B. B is aware of buckminster.output. When it sees it it writes its output there.Now you add action A. A is ultimately dependent on B. When you invoke A, B runs first. B sees buckminster.output and writes its output there. Then A runs. A sees buckminster.output and writes its output there...on top of B's output???That doesn't seem sensible to me.
We could of course introduce a new XML format, a local runtime complement to the cspec. But I'd rather postpone that for later.
- thomas