jerome lacoste wrote:
1. Full support for 1.1+
2. Limited support for 1.1-1.2, full support for 1.3+
3. No support for 1.1-1.2, full support 1.3+
go for 3
'oldest' I really meant "not SDK 5.0 only".
Great, no 3 seems to be the favorite. I'll remove the stuff needed for
1.1 support (like th
On 8/6/05, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Jerome
>
> Thanks for a lot of really good feedback and ideas! I will come back to
> some of the other stuff later on, but first I think we need to discuss
> on of the points you bring up:
>
> jerome lacoste wrote:
> > * run on the
2 or 3 for me. Sun no longer support them, and I don't think anyone
would be developing new code for them. I don't think commons-exec would
be an important thing to have running on the MS VM :)
- Brett
Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
> Hi Jerome
>
> Thanks for a lot of really good feedback and ideas! I
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 01:18:08AM +0200, Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
> Hi Jerome
>
> Thanks for a lot of really good feedback and ideas! I will come back to
> some of the other stuff later on, but first I think we need to discuss
> on of the points you bring up:
>
> jerome lacoste wrote:
> >*
Hi Jerome
Thanks for a lot of really good feedback and ideas! I will come back to
some of the other stuff later on, but first I think we need to discuss
on of the points you bring up:
jerome lacoste wrote:
* run on the oldest SDK possible
I think there are three ways to go:
1. Full sup
Thanks a lot to Eric for pointing me to this thread.
As he said, I started a similar project some weeks ago and put some
notes to share on http://www.coffeebreaks.org/blogs/?p=8. I would have
preferred more feedback from the jakarta guys before going further.
Looks like my wishes are coming true :
Jerome Lacoste wrote a proposal a couple months ago to the
CruiseControl mailing list talking about the same basic idea. His
proposal is here: http://www.coffeebreaks.org/blogs/?p=8. I will
forward this thread to him as he might be very interested in
contributing.
At any rate, something
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 16:18 +0200, Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
> Tomasz Pik wrote:
> >>* Process destroyer: adds itself as a shutdown hook, Execute adds and
> >>removes created processes to ensure that they are correctly destroyed
> >>when the JVM stops.
> >
> >
> > I'm sure it works in Ant but I'm
Tomasz Pik wrote:
* Process destroyer: adds itself as a shutdown hook, Execute adds and
removes created processes to ensure that they are correctly destroyed
when the JVM stops.
I'm sure it works in Ant but I'm worry about using such solution in server-side
applications where JVM (in therory)
On 01/08/05, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> This is a very short description of the cleaned up Ant exec task design:
...
> * Process destroyer: adds itself as a shutdown hook, Execute adds and
> removes created processes to ensure that they are correctly destroyed
> when the
Brett Porter wrote:
* Would it be a good starting point (if so I'll create a patch for the
code I've cleaned up and removed the Ant specifics from)?
I think so.
Cool, I'll get you a SVN patch tonight to get started.
/niklas
-
This is a very short description of the cleaned up Ant exec task design:
* Exec: the former Ant task class used to create and configure Execute
instances. Now mainly a convience class for starting new Execute
instances.
* Execute: the main class for running one process. Handles creation
and
Hi Niklas,
> * Do you think this fits with what you would find appropriate and
> useful for commons-exec?
This sounds pretty good to me. Thanks for jumping o nthis, I was about
to start one today when I saw your mail.
One thing I'd like to see is the interfaces for CommandLauncher,
CommandLine a
Hi
Lets start the discussions on the design of commons-exec. I'll start by
describing the Ant implementation that I think is the most mature out
there. I also think it contains the bits that would be approriate for
this package.
This is a very short description of the cleaned up Ant exec tas
14 matches
Mail list logo
