Hello Glenn, "Twiggs, Glenn" wrote: > > Bill, > > I just submitted a proposal for adding the same "detached" processing to the > Java task. I'll rework my patch to use your naming convention, i.e. > "detach=true|false". Java already has an "output" attribute, so I don't need > to fuss with that; is the "inwindow" attribute appropriate for the Java > task?
Actually, there's a significant difference between your functionality and mine. Yours enables multi-threading in the <java> task. Mine is processed based and lets you run something with <exec> and have Ant continue without waiting for the process to complete. This allows you to use Ant as a process launcher which can be handy for long running servers or even demos where you want to start up several Java clients each in their own console window all connected to a server. Although I haven't looked into it, the detached functionality would also be appropriate (at some level) for the <java> task as well. As a result, please don't use the same attributes. For multi-threading, parallel seems like a more appropriate attribute or name to describe the underlying functionality. There has been discussion off and on about implementing multi-threading functionality so that within a target, you could run various tasks that are thread safe in their own threads and then do a <join/> explicitly or it would be done implicily at the end of the target. Once 1.3 is out the door, I'm sure this topic will come up again. > One final question ... when do you plan on getting this committed? I'll try > and have my changes done about the same time. None of the committers have said yea or nay to the functionality I'm proposing so I don't know if the patch I plan to submit would be accepted. I'll just have to submit the patch and find out :) -Bill
