Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 16480 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2002 14:38:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Mar 2002 14:38:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 2902 invoked by uid 97); 27 Mar 2002 14:38:13 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 2877 invoked by uid 97); 27 Mar 2002 14:38:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 2826 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2002 14:38:12 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: bodewig.bost.de: bodewig set sender to bodewig@apache.org using -f To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Subject: Re: ant bug or user error? References: <20020326164012.39547.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com> <3CA1D6C0.3080605@cortexebusiness.com.au> From: Stefan Bodewig Date: 27 Mar 2002 15:38:12 +0100 In-Reply-To: <3CA1D6C0.3080605@cortexebusiness.com.au> Message-ID: Lines: 38 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Civil Service) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Conor MacNeill wrote: > Stefan Bodewig wrote: > >> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Paul Kilroy wrote: >>>I think the is related to the fact that ant caches >>>targets (and their tasks), but the task is "cleaned >>>up" at the end of the execute method. This pretty much >>>invalidates the cache for the target. >>> >> Yes. > > Well, this task cleans itself up (kills itself really) but the core > does not do any general task cleanup. I think this is what Paul talks about (the task cleaning up itself), yes. >>>-Don't run the target again, it's already been run. >>> >> or alternatively, don't use cached tasks. > > These two statements amount to the same thing, in general, don't > they? No. My alternative is to run a target of that name but use fresh instances, while Paul talks about not running the target twice at all. >> We've always said that "ant foo moo" is supposed to be the same as >> "ant foo; ant moo" which it obviously is not. > > This has never really been true that these are equivalent due to > property immutability. So my alternative is not viable. Stefan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: