ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Reilly <peter.rei...@corvil.com>
Subject Re: AW: Ant 1.6 local and ThreadLocals
Date Wed, 03 Dec 2003 10:34:58 GMT
Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I understand that there is a consensus to have macrodef use @{attribute}
>notation.
>  
>
Well of the committers, there were 2 (you + Stefan) votes for it, + me 
:-\   + jan via private e-mail.

>I am not afraid that we cannot get committers support for local, I am more
>afraid that in the course of introducing local, there will be more
>discussions concerning issues of scope, thread support, ..., which will
>further delay the release of 1.6.
>
>My preference would be to turn macrodef to use @{attribute} for 1.6 and
>delay local for 1.7.
>  
>
This would be my feeling as well - maybe have local for 1.6.1 if necessary.

>Peter, how soon can you deliver the @{attribute} change ?
>  
>
It is ready now to commit. :-)

Peter

>I would like the following scenario :
>
>- introduce @{attribute} in 1.6 and in HEAD,
>- fix failing testcases
>- deliver a beta3
>- introduce local in HEAD
>- deliver ant 1.6
>
>Cheers,
>
>Antoine
>
>-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
>Von: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. Dezember 2003 16:20
>An: dev@ant.apache.org
>Betreff: Re: Ant 1.6 local and ThreadLocals
>
>
>On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Jose Alberto Fernandez <jalberto@cellectivity.com>
>wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Well now that we are finally getting to an agreement
>>on <macrodef> I think it is time to start a new round
>>of rocous over <local>, (not enough traffic today ;-P )
>>    
>>
>
>We don't seem to be too successful in generating responses these
>days. 8-)
>
>I'm a bit torn between releasing 1.6 without any local support and
>trying to get enough support for it to delay 1.6 further.  I think
>local is necessary to make macrodef as powerful as it should be, but
>wouldn't want to wait another two months to finally get committer
>support for it into 1.6.
>
>  
>
>>I still fill a little unconfortable on using <local>
>>for defining local-scopes (which was the original usage)
>>and using <local> to define values that must be different
>>on different threads of execution (i.e., Java ThreadLocals).
>>    
>>
>
>Hmm,
>
><parallel>
>  <sequential>
>    <local property="a">
>      ...
>    </local>
>  </sequential>
>  <sequential>
>    <local property="a">
>      ...
>    </local>
>  </sequential>
></parallel>
>
>should give something predictable - or something that is completely
>undefined, much like what we'd currently have for references.
>
>The above looks like a "user's fault" situation, until you let
><macrodef>'s using <local>s into the game.
>
><macrodef name="foo">
>  <sequential>
>    <local name="my-temporary-variable">
>       ...
>    </local>
>  </sequential>
></macrodef>
>
>with multiple invocations of <name> inside <parallel>.  For a scenario
>like this, <local> implicitly promises to be Thread local.  At least
>it does for me.
>
>Stefan
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>
>
>
>  
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


Mime
View raw message