Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 63465 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 23:50:33 -0000 Received: from pscgate.progress.com (192.77.186.1) by h31.sny.collab.net with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 23:50:33 -0000 Received: from elvirus.progress.com (elvirus [192.77.186.100]) by pscgate.progress.com (8.10.2/8.10.2/PSC-4.01) with ESMTP id f0MNodi15041 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:50:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from progress.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elvirus.progress.com (8.10.2/8.10.2/PSC-4.01) with ESMTP id f0MNqfJ13622 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:52:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from naserv.bedford.progress.com (naserv [172.16.5.174]) by progress.COM (8.7.2/PSC-1.0) with ESMTP id SAA28460 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:50:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from progress.com ([172.16.107.175]) by naserv.bedford.progress.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id G7L8WE00.1HT for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:50:38 -0500 Message-ID: <3A6CC74E.493B6625@progress.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:50:38 -0500 From: "Bill Burton" Organization: Progress Software Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US,ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Subject: Re: long command lines from execon with parallel=true References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hello, Mariusz Nowostawski wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Dan Christopherson wrote: > > Under ant 1.2 and ant 1.3 I'm using the execon task to fire off a build of > > a pile of JSPs (under WinNT). this results in a very long command line > > that will not execute. > > > > I've made a local change to the 1.2 sources to add a 'batch' attribute to > > the execon task (telling it how many source files to pass per batch > > execution of the command). Should I submit this patch? > > Sounds all right to me. Some of the underlying executable programs may > also expect limited number of arguments, so your patch would make that > easier to use as well. I think it would be preferable to specify the maximum length of the command rather than the number of arguments. Since length of paths can vary wildly, there's no guarantee a certain number of arguments won't still be too long in some cases. -Bill Burton > > Alternatively, is there another way to accomplish the same means with > > the normal functionality? > > You can always use: > * parallel=false, to make single argument per call (slow) > * split single into several ones making partitioning of argments > by explicit arbitrary matching (not nice in general case) > > best regards > Mariusz