bodewig commented on pull request #126:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ant/pull/126#issuecomment-671948800
replaced with #135
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on
bodewig closed pull request #126:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ant/pull/126
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the sp
babasaikiran commented on pull request #126:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ant/pull/126#issuecomment-667827262
@bodewig Tested the #135 and things are working as expected.
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Se
bodewig commented on pull request #126:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ant/pull/126#issuecomment-667674899
@babasaikiran please take a look at #135 for my suggestion for fixing the bug
This is an automated message from the Ap
bodewig commented on pull request #126:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ant/pull/126#issuecomment-667667624
By returning `false` from `LocalPropertyStack`'s `setNew` you create a copy
of the local property inside of the project properties themselves. I can see
you do this because there is n
babasaikiran commented on pull request #126:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ant/pull/126#issuecomment-666360443
Thanks @bodewig , ` ./bootstrap.sh ` is the missing piece and now i am able
to reproduce it.
This is an automate
bodewig commented on pull request #126:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ant/pull/126#issuecomment-666339391
It's been several years since I last looked at the implementation of local
properties, something I need to change before I can merge your PR anyway. Right
now I'm not sure
babasaikiran commented on pull request #126:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ant/pull/126#issuecomment-666075584
I am on Linux mint 20 and with **jdk1.8.0_181**.
Executed the test case with commnad: `./build.sh antunit-tests
-Dantunit.testcase=**/local-test.xml`.
here is the outp
bodewig commented on pull request #126:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ant/pull/126#issuecomment-665651176
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use th
babasaikiran commented on pull request #126:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ant/pull/126#issuecomment-665677054
@bodewig , had a look at the fail case.. seems this particular testcase is
failing only on windows environment.
Will try to get a windows machine to try and fix it.
babasaikiran commented on pull request #126:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ant/pull/126#issuecomment-660437861
@jaikiran Any update on this ?
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the messag
jaikiran commented on pull request #126:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ant/pull/126#issuecomment-630551552
this is ok to test
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on
babasaikiran opened a new pull request #126:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ant/pull/126
The fix here is to honor the local variables in propertyset within the local
scope. Below is the bug related to the fix.
[Bug 50179 - Properties declared as "local" are not accessible via
proper
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Surprising, actually, but given that this is the only
> noise I've seen on the thread I'd say that puts us in
> good shape to commit. :)
+1
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe,
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, while I haven't even checked 1.6.3, 1.6.5, or
> 1.7.0 (the past is the past), it appears that both the
> impending release and the trunk outperform 1.6.2.
Excellent. Thanks for checking. +1. --DD
---
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Matt Benson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would be glad to run the diagnostics if given a
> > setup or at least your task-level performance
> analyzer.
>
> I've uploaded a jar as attachment to bug 23942 w/ m
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would be glad to run the diagnostics if given a
> setup or at least your task-level performance analyzer.
I've uploaded a jar as attachment to bug 23942 w/ my timer listener. I
don't have a build setup to simulate high usa
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Matt Benson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dominique reminded me of
> > the performance problems that had been noted by
> Jan &
> > Steve; ...
> > http://markmail.org/message/ivjlvnqmygg4ap5f
>
> Actually it wa
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dominique reminded me of
> the performance problems that had been noted by Jan &
> Steve; ...
> http://markmail.org/message/ivjlvnqmygg4ap5f
Actually it was http://markmail.org/message/rokgze4tfmwrwjab that I
had in mind, whi
Last summer Peter attached an improved patch to bug
23942, which unfortunately still suffered some memory
leakage. Using a heap analyzer I was able to,
apparently, eliminate these. Dominique reminded me of
the performance problems that had been noted by Jan &
Steve; returning to that thread (1) t
eed to document it properly - or find a
> non-awful way to make it work 8-)
Everything to do with , , etc is a nightmare, I would
rather deprecate the whole lot and replace them with macros (antcall) or
with calls to a new jvm (for ).
In any case, if local properties are to be inherited, th
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/27/07, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How does nesting of locals work? If a macro calls another macro,
>> are the properties set in the outer macro available to the inner?
>> What about subbuilds invoked from insid
On 8/27/07, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > I have updated the local properties patch to
> > make use of the new PropertyHelper delegate infrastructure.
> &g
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have updated the local properties patch to
> make use of the new PropertyHelper delegate infrastructure.
> (see: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23942)
Still haven't found the t
py of the stack.
Peter
>
> -Matt
>
> --- Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > I have updated the local properties patch to
> > make use of the new PropertyHelper delegate
> > infrastructure.
> > (see:
> >
> http://issues
t; I have updated the local properties patch to
> make use of the new PropertyHelper delegate
> infrastructure.
> (see:
>
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23942)
>
> The idea behind local properties is to provide
> isolation of properties within element blocks
Hi all,
I have updated the local properties patch to
make use of the new PropertyHelper delegate infrastructure.
(see: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23942)
The idea behind local properties is to provide
isolation of properties within element blocks - like
macrodefs and
I was thinking about "local" properties, having read the discussions
relating to these in the last few months.
Perhaps we could introduce the concept of "property scopes" instead.
The project would provide a standard "global" property scope by default.
It would al
> From: Kev Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> adding a scope parameter wouldn't be much use now, but for
> later on we
> could roll properties and local properties together with this
> strategy.
> Maybe people want to stick with p
I can do that.
Is "define" a good name ?
Here's one vote for "my". Everyone in the programming
community would get that as a scoped entity immediately.
I know that we already have global properties and that this is looking
at local properties, but could we
Peter Reilly wrote:
>
> Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> >
> I can do that.
> Is "define" a good name ?
Here's one vote for "my". Everyone in the programming
community would get that as a scoped entity immediately.
--
Jack J. Woehr # The year 2005 marks the
PO Box 51, Golden, CO
Will it work, if I want to load a file into some "temporary local entity"?
- Alexey.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alexey N. Solofnenko wrote:
It does not say "local" anywhere. Should it be ?
The "define" element does not create a local property, all it does
is generate a value for an attribute. This value can be used for any
purpose that the macro author may think of. The value is constructed
so that a differe
prefer plain because it is simple.
Jose Alberto
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexey N. Solofnenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 January 2005 18:30
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: local properties
>
>
> It does not say "local" anyw
It does not say "local" anywhere. Should it be ?
- Alexey.
Peter Reilly wrote:
I can do that.
Is "define" a good name ?
Peter
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
length of file '@{filename}' is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK, can the person applying the patch for the local properties also
apply
my patch with the corresponding modifications in the name?
I can do that.
Is "define" a good name ?
Peter
Otherwise, I will need to dig it out from home
ename}' is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK, can the person applying the patch for the local properties also
apply
my patch with the corresponding modifications in the name?
Otherwise, I will need to dig it out from home since I do not have it
at hand from work.
Let me know it you prefer me t
Peter Reilly wrote:
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wouldn't mind having the two, and see what works best. :-)
Sounds good, but is it possible to get a different name than "let" ?
Hey, just propose a name for it. I am flexible... :-)
Stefan
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wouldn't mind having the two, and see what works best. :-)
Sounds good, but is it possible to get a different name than "let" ?
Hey, just propose a name for it. I am flexible... :-)
Stefan's suggestion
> From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >
> >Wouldn't mind having the two, and see what works best. :-)
> >
> >
> Sounds good, but is it possible to get a different name than "let" ?
>
Hey, just propose a name for it. I am flexible... :-)
Jose Alberto
getting the name ...
Jan
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet am: Dienstag, 11. Januar 2005 13:58
> An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Betreff: Re: local properties
>
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Kev Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Kev Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Sounds good, but is it possible to get a different name than "let"
>> ?
>>
>> Peter
>
> Following the VBness of "let", how about "dim"? ;)
Actually it's a Lispness - for those of us who liked the name let, at
least 8-)
Hmm, borrow
Or use perl's "local" or even "my" (the latter suggestion being a joke -
which is likely to back-fire as usual). ;n)
Phil :n)
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 11:52, Kev Jackson wrote:
> > Sounds good, but is it possible to get a different name than "let" ?
> >
> > Peter
>
> Following the VBness of "let",
Sounds good, but is it possible to get a different name than "let" ?
Peter
Following the VBness of "let", how about "dim"? ;)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
As per other approaches to local properties, unless we go
and define a
real semantic for them (like any other well design
programming language
out there) I
> From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
>
> >As per other approaches to local properties, unless we go
> and define a
> >real semantic for them (like any other well design
> programming language
> >out there) I
--- Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[SNIP]
> As the main use case for local properties is
> we
> could just implement them for macrodefs, and if
> necessary
> extend them later to be the free style properties.
[SNIP]
> We could implement this as a trial in ant cv
Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote:
> what is the number of your bug report ?
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29347
--
Jack J. Woehr # The year 2005 marks the
PO Box 51, Golden, CO 80402 # thirtieth anniversary of my
http://www.well.com/~jax # entry into anti-WO
unless there
is some support for it
(I have not have the need for local properties myself, so it is not a
problem for me).
As per other approaches to local properties, unless we go and define
a real semantic
for them (like any other well design programming language out there)
I see they creating
Hello Jack,
what is the number of your bug report ?
Cheers,
Antoine
Jack J. Woehr wrote
And recursive property expansion! @[EMAIL PROTECTED]@{property}.expansion}!
I believe an implementation of this still languishes as a code example
in a bug I filed ...
---
ing, people will have to
> >understand
> >when to use it properly and so on.
> >
> >The patch is there in bugzilla, but I will not apply it unless there is some
> >support for it
> >(I have not have the need for local properties myself, so it is not a
> >
not apply it unless there is some
support for it
(I have not have the need for local properties myself, so it is not a problem
for me).
As per other approaches to local properties, unless we go and define a real semantic
for them (like any other well design programming language out there) I see
support for it
(I have not have the need for local properties myself, so it is not a problem
for me).
As per other approaches to local properties, unless we go and define a real
semantic
for them (like any other well design programming language out there) I see they
creating
more problems than
Does anyone recall where we left off on this
discussion?I think we need these, what do we need
to resolve to get them in?
-Matt
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
--- Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I would like to hear comments about having an
> "antlib" scope. I.e.,
> global but visible only to tasks defined in the same
> antlib. This
> will give you a concept similar to "module
> variables" in many
> programming languages.
That is a
gain? How would this simplify
> things?
>
> Less pollution of the global property name space? I
Yes, that...
> wouldn't expect
> people to use any let/scope/whatever container
> unless they really
> wanted local properties - but that doesn't mean they
> want all the
t; And it cover all the cases of prefix and such by only modifying a
> > couple of places.
>
> Mainly and - any other tasks?
>
> Infrastructure would be the same as for the latest local
> properties proposal, right?
>
> > Now, I still will fight until convinced
> And it cover all the cases of prefix and such by only modifying a
> couple of places.
Mainly and - any other tasks?
Infrastructure would be the same as for the latest local properties
proposal, right?
> Now, I still will fight until convinced the implementation does not
> break some
be the gain? How would this simplify things?
Less pollution of the global property name space? I wouldn't expect
people to use any let/scope/whatever container unless they really
wanted local properties - but that doesn't mean they want all their
properties to be local. I'm not s
Not that I am giving up on my proposal or anything :-)
But since I think they both can coexist as tools for people to use as
they please,
How about structuring this local variables scope as follows:
${1} ${2} ${3}
${1} ${2} ${3}
${1} ${2}
Let doesn't scare me off too much, as it reminds me of Standard ML.
let x=lambda(f) ==>f+3;
And Basic, funnily enough:
LET X=X=1;
I think if we use Let, then we are starting to look like a language with
the notion of 'environment' as lisp engines call it. In which case the
issue is not so muc
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
From: Jose Alberto Fernandez
From: Dominique Devienne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dealing with would be tricky, but I think we
*should* break BC by not allowing the different 'threads' of
a to share properties, at least unless explicitly
requested.
So wh
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
Do we copy, not copy, almost copy? What happens if I declare
a parallel with a ? inside a macrodef.
The stack of "pointers" (pointers being the java variable as seen by a C
programmer) is copied.
The following works fine:
--- Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is absolutely valid code today. Shall it stay
> in an infinite wait?
This is where scoping comes in... the
exists in the same scope as the , so
all spawned threads would diverge from a common point:
i.e
> From: Jose Alberto Fernandez
>
> > From: Dominique Devienne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Dealing with would be tricky, but I think we
> > *should* break BC by not allowing the different 'threads' of
> > a to share properties, at least unless explicitly
> > requested.
> >
>
> So wha
> From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
>
> >>From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> From the point of view of most languages, there is a flat
> >>namespace. For example in "C" one can do
> >>
> >>int a;
> >>
> >>void proc(void) {
> >> i
are no expectation whatsoever.
>
> I'm not following. I think I understand what a scope is.
> I don't confuse scope for the notation to define explicitly
> what should 'go out of scope' when the explicit scope ends.
>
> I consider running a as starting/entering
ends.
I consider running a as starting/entering a new scope for
names,
doing something, then ending/leaving the scope, restoring shadowed
properties and removing local properties, as defined by the propertyset.
> And I have mentioned several times that one could use propertysets
> to sto
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From the point of view of most languages, there is a flat
namespace. For example in "C" one can do
int a;
void proc(void) {
int a;
a = 1;
}
Peter
Sorry, but you are mistaken here. The "a" being assigned is diffe
> From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> From the point of view of most languages, there is a flat
> namespace. For example in "C" one can do
>
> int a;
>
> void proc(void) {
>int a;
>a = 1;
> }
>
> Peter
>
Sorry, but you are mistaken here. The "a" being assigned is diffe
uld
> revisit ;-)
>
> My currently limited understanding of property/reference
> handling in Ant does not allow me to see any insurmountable
> issue. Can we in fact revisit this subject, since local
> properties pretty much would be solved with a real stack. Or
> am I ju
with this issue?
This works fine.
The issue I was dealing with was existing local properties.
The change made was that the stacks of localproperties are copied
as before, but only the pointers to the properties are copied, and new
properties are not created.
I had made copies for each thread. S
; So, Task, Target, Parallel do not get changed.
>
> I also think that the nested localproperty for the macrodef
> task can be
> dropped
> initially. It would be easier to explain just one container for local
> properties/
>
Peter,
The original reason for all the thre
roperty/reference handling in
Ant does not allow me to see any insurmountable issue. Can we in
fact revisit this subject, since local properties pretty much would
be solved with a real stack. Or am I just naïve, and a real stack
is not possible
--- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is what you get when you say "do as you please,
> I don't have time
> to fight for my solution"? I should try it more
> often ;-)
I originally thought about a "scope" Sequential
subclass as well. In fact, when I got into my email
today I plann
uld try it more often ;-)
Well, I still think that implicit containers are the best solution, but
when I
was coding for I saw that It would be
annoying for thirdparty tasks to implement something similiar - so it
would be better to have a method in ant core to provide local properties
without a need t
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Jose Alberto Fernandez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, a long time ago I went on proposing something like this, to
> have a real stack of property definitions, shadowing, and so on. But
> there are a lot of funny issues that made it very dificult and a lot
> of compatibility
would be easier to explain just one
container for local properties/
prop is ${prop}
prop is ${prop}
result should be the same:
[echo] prop is a local value
[echo] prop is ${prop}
or do you want to something like
prop is ${prop}
No
or
prop is
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, I am modifying the local patch to do:
>
>
>
>
> prop is ${prop}
>
>
This is what you get when you say "do as you please, I don't have time
to fight for my solution"? I should try it more often ;-)
Stefan
-
be easier to explain just one
> container for local properties/
prop is ${prop}
prop is ${prop}
result should be the same:
[echo] prop is a local value
[echo] prop is ${prop}
or do you want to something like
prop is ${prop}
or
atch to do:
prop is ${prop}
So, Task, Target, Parallel do not get changed.
I also think that the nested localproperty for the macrodef task can be
dropped
initially. It would be easier to explain just one container for local
properti
Jack J. Woehr wrote:
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
Nor the other way around. You've convinced me, we need shadowing.
Shadowing, or a definition stack for each definition?
That is the way the local patch works.
But it is not as clean as it should be, in that user properties and normal
properties
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
For example, the usage of ThreadLocals in other
proposals may be right for some things, but it may be wrong if I am
trying to use properties to communicate between threads. (Which I can do
with regular properties).
You are correct.
Using the following:
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Jose Alberto Fernandez
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I just want to say that in my proposal, the temporary
> properties only
> > last for as long as the Project instance is executing.
>
> I know, still that might
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Nor the other way around. You've convinced me, we need shadowing.
Shadowing, or a definition stack for each definition? That's the way m4 works
[ pushdef() ] and I've implemented that in object Forth.
--
Jack J. Woehr # Libertarian candidate
PO Box 51, Go
> I.e have a local nested element for - this syntax has
> of course been discussed previously.
Hmm, OK.
> The local properties should I think be in thread-local storage to
> avoid conflicts between multiple threads, so I think that
> PropertyHelper needs to be modified to do thi
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Jose Alberto Fernandez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just want to say that in my proposal, the temporary properties
> only last for as long as the Project instance is executing.
I know, still that might be too much. GridAnt is one such case, and I
think there's been some ki
I hate when I reply to my own messages, but I think
some additional remarks are granted here.
> From: Jose Alberto Fernandez
>
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > > >Havent got an answer to that proposal:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I do not see how it wo
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> > >Havent got an answer to that proposal:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I do not see how it would be useful
>
> You could use all other tasks as they are. Many tasks store
> their result in properties. Some (like loadproperties) in
> mu
> >Havent got an answer to that proposal:
> >
> >
>
> I do not see how it would be useful
You could use all other tasks as they are. Many tasks store
their result in properties. Some (like loadproperties) in multiple
props.
> or how to implement it. :-)
- Register the "tmp" as tempor
[edited for length]
--- Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
>
> I do not see how it would be useful or how to
> implement it. :-)
I think it could be useful. I don't remember how your
impl was structured, but there might be room
for this as well.
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
Notice, that except for the access to the HashMap containing the
properties
you do not need to do much more in the sense of thread safety.
The names are unique, hence there is no two threads with the same
property
(unless the name gets passed from a common parent) but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Havent got an answer to that proposal:
Yes, sorry I meant to reply.
I do not see how it would be useful or how to implement it. :-)
Peter
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For addit
> From: Steve Loughran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:26:56 +0200, Stefan Bodewig
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Hmm, ask Steve how long a SmartFrog instance is running.
> And AFAIU > NetBeans 4 runs a single instance of Ant as long
> as the IDE is > running.
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:26:56 +0200, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hmm, ask Steve how long a SmartFrog instance is running. And AFAIU
> NetBeans 4 runs a single instance of Ant as long as the IDE is
> running. This may really lead to quite a few properties at the end of
> the day, i
> From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> >Trying to consolidate a few answers since I'm very late to the party
> >anyway.
> >
> >On Fri, 08 Oct 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>2) All these uniquely named properties go on living afte
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:26:56 +0200, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hmm, ask Steve how long a SmartFrog instance is running. And AFAIU
> NetBeans 4 runs a single instance of Ant as long as the IDE is
> running. This may really lead to quite a few properties at the end of
> the day, i
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Trying to consolidate a few answers since I'm very late to
> the party anyway.
>
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have had a proposal outstanding for a while f
> >>Example:
> >>
> >>
> >> prop is ${prop}
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
Havent got an answer to that proposal:
Jan
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
Trying to consolidate a few answers since I'm very late to the party
anyway.
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have had a proposal outstanding for a while for local properties:
a long while.
My preferences haven't changed much ov
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
