Re: JUnit task - forking only once for a batch

2003-10-09 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003, Philip Aston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sent on Monday. Any good Stefan? Sorry for the lack of response. I've seen it but haven't had the time to look at it yet, sorry. Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [E

RE: JUnit task - forking only once for a batch

2003-10-04 Thread Philip Aston
> -Original Message- > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 25 September 2003 09:38 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: JUnit task - forking only once for a batch > > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Philip Aston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot

RE: [PATCH] JUnit task - forking only once for a batch

2003-09-29 Thread Philip Aston
> -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 wr

[PATCH] JUnit task - forking only once for a batch - RESEND

2003-09-29 Thread Philip Aston
> -Original Message- > From: Philip Aston > Sent: 28 September 2003 15:49 > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: [PATCH] JUnit task - forking only once for a batch > > Patch and new file attached f

RE: [PATCH] JUnit task - forking only once for a batch

2003-09-28 Thread Jim Dixon
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Philip Aston wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Philip Aston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > and would they like This syntax seems better to me. > > > Patch and new file attached for consideration. I suspect that the listserv dropped both. > > >

RE: [PATCH] JUnit task - forking only once for a batch

2003-09-28 Thread Philip Aston
> -Original Message- > From: Jim Dixon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 28 September 2003 18:23 > 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

Re: [PATCH] JUnit task - forking only once for a batch

2003-09-28 Thread Jim Dixon
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Philip Aston wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Philip Aston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > and would they like > > > > > > I'd like to see it, at least. > > > > > > > OK, I'll cut a patch at the weekend. > > Patch and new file attached for consideration. Examp

[PATCH] JUnit task - forking only once for a batch

2003-09-28 Thread Philip Aston
> -Original Message- > From: Philip Aston > Sent: 25 September 2003 22:50 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: JUnit task - forking only once for a batch > > > -Original Message- > > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >

RE: JUnit task - forking only once for a batch

2003-09-25 Thread Philip Aston
> -Original Message- > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 25 September 2003 09:38 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: JUnit task - forking only once for a batch > > > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Philip Aston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot

Re: JUnit task - forking only once for a batch

2003-09-25 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Philip Aston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. Is there planned support for this already? Not exactly for forking each . What has been asked for (but never implemented) is forking exactly one VM for all tests. > 2. If not, who maintains the JUnit task, All Ant co

Re: JUnit task - forking only once for a batch

2003-09-24 Thread Jim Dixon
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Philip Aston wrote: > I finally got fed up with the cost of forking a new process for every test > (~1 second in my environment). I've hacked to support a new type > of where where all of the tests are executed in a single > sub-process. *Much* faster. > > I'm quite willing

JUnit task - forking only once for a batch

2003-09-23 Thread Philip Aston
[Initially sent to user@ant.apache.org, resent to a more appropriate place]. Hi, I finally got fed up with the cost of forking a new process for every test (~1 second in my environment). I've hacked to support a new type of where where all of the tests are executed in a single sub-process. *M