If the CORE keepers do not want to add <trycatch/> to core ANT that is fine. But to now come up with some obscure attribute for <sequential/> to do exactly the same thing it is available in antcontrib, but with a different syntax, I think it is preposterous.
If the argument against <trycatch> is the scripting tabu, somebody will have to explain why <sequential/> would be less of a scripting feature. Otherwise, just point the few people that need such functionality to antcontrib, and let it at that. Jose Alberto > -----Original Message----- > From: Dominique Devienne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 03 October 2003 17:38 > To: 'Ant Developers List' > Subject: RE: failonerror; general solution > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Loughran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 11:23 AM > > To: Ant Developers List > > Subject: Re: failonerror; general solution > > > > Dale Anson wrote: > > > What's the difference in use case between this and the try/catch > > > from ant-contrib or antelope? I'd suggest grabbing the try/catch > > > from either, and making it a core task. Just judging from > the e-mail > > > that I get, the try/catch task in antelope is one of the main > > > reasons people download > > it. > > > > I am +1 to trycatch, because it gives you better failure modes than > > just 'ignore'; like the option to rollback or warn. > > I'm +0 to trycatch, and +1 to enhancing <sequential> myself. --DD > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
