From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> 
> 
> > In the case of build exceptions (build failures), the standard answer is to 
> > use a BuildListener which shutsdown
> > the server in case of a failure. Yes it requires programming from you, but 
> > it could be as simple as executing an ANT target that runs the code to 
> > shutdown.
> 
> 
> Hmmm, wonder about executing a target from within a build listener. 
> Might work - don't know how deps would be handled, etc. I'm not that 
> keen on the <catch> and explicit <kill> concept but I think it does have 
> the advantage of expressing the handling of such situations in the same 
> construct, not off in some separate listener code. I know that is 
> probably a fine line.
> 
> 

I think I addressed this in my previous response.

>  
> >>2. The Ant 1.4 documentation specifically uses the example
> >>   of starting a server and running tests against it and
> >>   stopping the server. If that is NOT what <parallel> is
> >>   for, then better documentation and examples are in order...
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > I never believed too much on those particular examples, to tell you the 
> > truth. But I did not created that task. ;-)
> > 
> 
> 
> Why not? What didn't you believe? It is a common requirement - build 
> server code, run and test server. It was always this scenario which 
> motivated this sort of facility, right back to my original <async> patch.
> 

I did not believe in that example because of exactly the same type of problems 
Ken is inquiring about. <parallel> requires an implicit join of the tasks at 
the end. Then we have the issue of what should be the behaviour of failling 
parallel branches. Sorry for my ignorance, but what is the curent semantics? Is 
the entire build failling when a branch fails? That seems to me as the correct 
behaviour is we are talking about building-process. But if we are talking about 
scripting (which is what Ken wants) then that may be the wrong thing to do. So 
I am not clear at all what should be the right way. Should we have options? How 
about "at least two" (those are the king of conditions used on workflow, for 
example ;-) ).

Jose Alberto




_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to