> -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Dixon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 28 September 2003 19:46 > To: Philip Aston > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [PATCH] JUnit task - forking only once for a batch > > > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Philip Aston wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Philip Aston > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > and would they like <batchtest fork="single"/> > > This syntax seems better to me.
But isn't neatly orthogonal because the parent <junit> task specifies whether to fork or not. > > > > Patch and new file attached for consideration. > > I suspect that the listserv dropped both. Dang, will resend as inline text. Thanks for the heads up. > > > > Example usage: > > > > <junit fork="true"> > > > > <batchtest singleProcess="false"> > > This syntax is less clear -- but I suppose that you didn't > want to hassle > with changing setFork to accept any of a list of choices? Also true. Also, the second syntax allows some batchtests to be single process and some to be process per test. > > Yes, a list of the tests is passed to the forked process through > > a temporary file. > > And so all must share the same test options? For a <batchtest>, yes - which is the case for the process per test approach now. - Phil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
