ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Conor MacNeill" <co...@ebinteractive.com.au>
Subject RE: Request for Failed-Task
Date Mon, 06 Nov 2000 03:31:35 GMT
Jon,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Tirsén [mailto:jon.tirsen@emm.com]
>
[snip]
>
> Of course, there are some issues here as well: If a project is called from
> another project whould all the failure-targets be run in the chain? If a
> task is called from within the same project should the
> failure-target be run
> several times? Probably not, but what are the semantics? I
> imagine it would
> be healthy to reuse the same semantics as with ordinary targets,
> if it's run
> it does not need to be run again...
>
> Also (for both A and B) could failure-targets have "dependants"
> and what if
> they fail?
>
> And, of course, applying the "keep-things-simple" general rule (occhams
> razor), is there a way to design this simple enough? ASAP (= As Simple As
> Possible ;).
>

Is that Pandora's box I hear creaking open :-)?

If failure targets cannot have dependencies then they are not really
targets - they are something else. If they can't have failure attributes
then, again, these failure targets are not targets. If you are going to
introduce such restrictions then you want something which is not really a
target anymore, it is something more like a <failure> element which could
contain tasks but not have depends or failure attributes.

Conversely, without such restrictions, the complexity goes up, as does the
scope for things like infinite failure loops.

Thoughts?

Conor





Mime
View raw message