PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 3:41 PM
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: failonerror; general solution
>
> Gus Heck wrote:
>
>
>>Im wondering if part of what is happening is a migration of what people
>>need from a build tool...
>
>
> H
no matter what can have this feature which
is absolutely helpful.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 3:41 PM
To: Ant Developers List
Subject: Re: failonerror; general solution
Gus Heck wrote:
> Im wondering if part
Steve Loughran wrote:
>
> > Yes. As I said two years ago on this list, Ant (like m4, like make) is sort
> > of a mini-Prolog,
> > and Prolog *changed*. Like Edmund Burke's famous advice to King George III
> > on the Stamp
>
> which was?
"That which one has a right to do, it is not always conven
Jack Woehr wrote:
Gus Heck wrote:
Im wondering if part of what is happening is a migration of what people
need from a build tool...
Hi Gus ...
I think what's happening is that people are building larger projects than
most people who develop for Apache Ant had dealt with early in Ant history.
I'm
Gus Heck wrote:
> Im wondering if part of what is happening is a migration of what people
> need from a build tool...
Hi Gus ...
I think what's happening is that people are building larger projects than
most people who develop for Apache Ant had dealt with early in Ant history.
I'm working on t
Reading this thread I am beginning to think that there is a fundamental
problem on the road ahead for ant. If I understand correctly, one of the
founding Ideas of Ant was that builds were something that should be
described, not programed. Since I have joined this list about 1.5 years
ago, I hav
- Message d'origine -
De : "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Envoyé : jeudi 9 octobre 2003 15:30
Objet : RE: failonerror; general solution
>Very interesting point of view.
thanks ;))
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: failonerror; general solution
>
>
> I am not saying that everyone should redesign wheel because
> ant is not script ...
> I was like you tired of the scripting tabu, but i review my
> opinion when i had to do my first very complex build file.
view if we provide
the scripting features.
Only my opinion,
Emmanuel
- Message d'origine -
De : "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Envoyé : jeudi 9 octobre 2003 14:03
Objet : RE: failonerror; gene
s executed. ANT is not a procedural language, that I agree, but it is a
script.
> -Original Message-
> From: Emmanuel Feller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 09 October 2003 12:26
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: failonerror; general solution
>
>
&
-
De : "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Envoyé : jeudi 9 octobre 2003 12:59
Objet : RE: failonerror; general solution
To tell you the truth I think that the 5(?) tasks of
antcontrib are just a necesity if yo
is why I think we should ask for permission to ship it as an
antlib.
It will serve as an example of the power of the framework.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gus Heck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 08 October 2003 19:58
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: failo
I'm not as eager to see the tasks in Ant proper as others, that's why
I haven't taken any initiative here (in Apache speak, that's the
difference between my +0 and the +1s that have been cast by others).
Are we talking about all ant-contrib tasks or just try/catch? I thought
just try/catch...
6:46
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: failonerror; general solution
>
>
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Dale Anson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The source for ant-contrib's has your name as
> the author,
> > so "them" is "you"??!
>
gt; > have.
> > >
> > > Jose Alberto
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Stefan Bodewig
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: 07 October 2003 07:56
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Dale Anson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The source for ant-contrib's has your name as the author,
> so "them" is "you"??!
"I" am part of "them" and have already agreed to sign all papers that
are needed (if that is needed at all, given I've already signed a
couple of other p
Stefan,
The source for ant-contrib's has your name as the author, so
"them" is "you"??!
Dale
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003, Gus Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sequential has the advantage of not needing to get the ant-contrib
folks to give it to us (which I seem to remember was the
; >
> > I think ANTCONTRIB is one of the best candidates for
> > antlib that we
> > have.
> >
> > Jose Alberto
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: 07 October 2003 07
Sent: 07 October 2003 07:56
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: failonerror; general solution
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 06 Oct 2003, Gus Heck
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Sequential has the advantage of not needing to
> get the
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 07 October 2003 07:56
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: failonerror; general solution
>
>
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2003, Gus Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Sequential has the
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003, Gus Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sequential has the advantage of not needing to get the ant-contrib
> folks to give it to us (which I seem to remember was the sticking
> point b4)
AFAIR the "sticking point" has been that we haven't asked them yet 8-)
Stefan
---
Dominique Devienne wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Steve Loughran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 11:23 AM
To: Ant Developers List
Subject: Re: failonerror; general solution
Dale Anson wrote:
What's the difference in use case between this and the try/
7:38
> To: 'Ant Developers List'
> Subject: RE: failonerror; general solution
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Steve Loughran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 11:23 AM
> > To: Ant Developers List
> > Subject
Of course..
Peter
On Monday 06 October 2003 08:24, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This whould make the seqential task actually useful..
>
> ... outside of 8-)
>
> Stefan
>
> ---
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This whould make the seqential task actually useful..
... outside of 8-)
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
Hi Peter,
Yes, I can do that. I just read through the antlib docs after I saw your
message (I hadn't really looked at them before), that's some nice stuff!
Dale
peter reilly wrote:
On Friday 03 October 2003 16:34, Dale Anson wrote:
FYI, I'll be posting a new antelope distribution to sourceforge t
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Loughran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 11:23 AM
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: failonerror; general solution
>
> Dale Anson wrote:
> > What's the difference in use case between thi
Dale Anson wrote:
What's the difference in use case between this and the try/catch from
ant-contrib or antelope? I'd suggest grabbing the try/catch from either,
and making it a core task. Just judging from the e-mail that I get, the
try/catch task in antelope is one of the main reasons people do
On controversy: A lot of your stuff, Dale,
particularly the various call styles, looks very nice.
Another extension I like is ant-contrib's foreach
task. However, some companies will only approve a
relatively limited number of technologies for use
within the enterprise. The endeavor of getting
On Friday 03 October 2003 16:34, Dale Anson wrote:
>
> FYI, I'll be posting a new antelope distribution to sourceforge this
> weekend that has been updated for Ant 1.6.
>
> Dale
Hi, Dale,
Would you be able to put in an antlib descriptor
in the new antelope distribution.
make a file called antlib
Hmm... I didn't know there was controversy! Does this fall into the 'Ant
is not a scripting language' category?
As a java developer, the try/catch seems more natural to me. I have
spent some time working in a CM team, and realize that not everyone has
a development background. The try/catch con
> -Original Message-
> From: Dale Anson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> What's the difference in use case between this and the try/catch from
> ant-contrib or antelope?
I'd say that it follows an existing pattern in Ant, and is less
controversial maybe!? I'll just say I prefer an enhanced
; To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: failonerror; general solution
>
>
> peter reilly wrote:
>
> > On Friday 03 October 2003 15:54, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> >
> ...
> >>Not a bad idea! I would just make that:
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Envoyï: vendredi 3 octobre 2003 16:38
Objet : failonerror; general solution
There are a few new entries in bugzilla regarding handling
of
BuildExceptions.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23540
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23581
Also,
peter reilly wrote:
On Friday 03 October 2003 15:54, Dominique Devienne wrote:
...
Not a bad idea! I would just make that:
No new task, but simply a very useful extension to an existing task
container. --DD
This whould make the seqential task actually useful..
:-)))
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi
> -Original Message-
> From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Here is a task that does some like that:
>
> package task;
>
> import org.apache.tools.ant.taskdefs.Sequential;
>
>
> public class NoFail extends Sequential {
> private String failureProperty;
> public void
On Friday 03 October 2003 15:54, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jan Schroeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > What about creating a container task instead.
> > Like:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > That way all tasks automatically have somethin
ot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ï: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Envoyï: vendredi 3 octobre 2003 16:38
> Objet : failonerror; general solution
>
> > There are a few new entries in bugzilla regarding handling
>
> of
>
> > BuildExceptions.
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugz
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Schroeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> What about creating a container task instead.
> Like:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That way all tasks automatically have something like "failonerror" + you
> actually know if the part failed and can take an appr
I agree, it is a good option in my mind.
+1 :)
Emmanuel
- Message d'origine -
De : "Jan Schroeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Envoyé : vendredi 3 octobre 2003 16:38
Objet : failonerror; general solution
> There are a few new entries in
There are a few new entries in bugzilla regarding handling of
BuildExceptions.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23540
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23581
Also, some tasks already implement some "failonerror" attribute (e.g.
).
What about creating a con
41 matches
Mail list logo
