Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 32537 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2005 03:46:09 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Nov 2005 03:46:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 42716 invoked by uid 500); 3 Nov 2005 03:46:08 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 42657 invoked by uid 500); 3 Nov 2005 03:46:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 42646 invoked by uid 99); 3 Nov 2005 03:46:07 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 Nov 2005 19:46:07 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of carej@us.ibm.com designates 32.97.110.150 as permitted sender) Received: from [32.97.110.150] (HELO e32.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.150) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 Nov 2005 19:46:01 -0800 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e32.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id jA33jiis024232 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 22:45:44 -0500 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id jA33km1K538876 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:46:48 -0700 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id jA33jiXb030009 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:45:44 -0700 Received: from d03nm119.boulder.ibm.com (d03nm119.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.145]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id jA33jijc030006 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:45:44 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87pspihjj6.fsf@www.samaflost.de> To: "Ant Developers List" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Guidelines for executing delegate tasks? X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Jeffrey E Care Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 22:47:13 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM119/03/M/IBM(Release 6.53HF654 | July 22, 2005) at 11/02/2005 20:47:14, Serialize complete at 11/02/2005 20:47:14 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0014AAD4852570AE_=" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N --=_alternative 0014AAD4852570AE_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that the best way to address this problem is to change the thread/task registration to be a stack rather than the current single value implementation. This would safely handle any rogue usage of "perform" where "execute" would be preferred, while maintaining the current behavior. Any thoughts? -- Jeffrey E. Care (carej@us.ibm.com) WebSphere v7 Release Engineer WebSphere Build Tooling Lead (Project Mantis) Stefan Bodewig wrote on 11/02/2005 03:38:53 PM: > First of all, what you describe is what I've mentioned in > and > yes, using perform looks like the problem here. > > I'd be +1 to switching to execute in this case. > > On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Jeffrey E. Care wrote: > > > So, getting to the point, is there a general policy regarding > > "execute"/"perform" for delegate task instances? > > I don't think there is. We've mentioned the difference between > perform an execute in context with TaskContainers. "If you want build > events from the "delegate" tasks, use perform, otherwise use execute", > would be my advice, but I may be overlooking something. > > Stefan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org > --=_alternative 0014AAD4852570AE_=--