On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 07:54, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Alexey Solofnenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Actually the reason to implement keep-alive (originally keep-going) > > is to find as many problems as possible. It is done by executing all > > targets that do not depend directly or indirectly on failed > > targets. It is not fail-on-error flag - the build will still fail. > > OK, I agree that we are talking about different things, then. > > keep-going seems a better name, not sure whether it is the best > possible name (I've always been extremely bad with names and Ant has > suffered from this several times 8-). > > I'm fine with the revised implementation as well. I'd print the > exception's stack trace with a debug or even verbose loglevel in the > catch block for those exceptions that will not be rethrown, though. Ok
> > Maybe <ant>, <subant> and <antcall> (<*ant*>?) should get a new > attribute as well? The keep-going attribute gets passed to the subprojects in Project#initSubProject() (which is called by <ant/> et al). However, It does not work as expected when using <foreach/> as the first antcall failure will cause the foreach iteration to stop. Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
