On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]