Ok, I am confused :-( what is the meaning of "," and ";"
in your example? In order tomaintain BC, I was imagining that "," means
serialized execution and ";" means unordered (parallelizable)
execution. But that does not makes sense for your example, does it?
> From: Alexey N. Solofnenko [mailto:[E
I think I did understand it. This is a practical example:
Imposing execution order on "clean" and "build" targets is not enough -
clean1 and build1 can still be executed in parallel, so it will not
work. In fact you would want to execute targets in that order ("init" is
a common dependen
or any other symbol, being there before. But maybe we can
use
a diferent way to encode the information, for example:
a more complex case would be:
This would be a more backward compatible way to say:
Jose Alberto
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexey N. S
d the
corresponding deadlocks they may introduce.
Does the parallel executor ideas arein any way simillar? I really do not
know.
Jose Alberto
-Original Message-
From: Alexey N. Solofnenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 January 2005 18:40
To: Ant Developers List
Subject: Re: Need
Alexey N. Solofnenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 19 January 2005 18:40
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: Need a target meta data for parallel executor.
>
>
> So, would do you propose? Is it something like:
>
>
>value="xxx,yyy;aaa,bbb,ccc"
This will work right now (and I did put semicolon in the property value
to define several sets). It just seems inconvenient.
- Alexey.
Matt Benson wrote:
Doesn't the possibility exist that different sets of
mutex targets would exist? So you could have:
And ParallelExecutor would know to use a
Doesn't the possibility exist that different sets of
mutex targets would exist? So you could have:
And ParallelExecutor would know to use a PropertySet
looking for ParallelExecutor.mutex. as the properties'
prefix.
I get a headache thinking where to go from there. ;)
-Matt
--- "Alexey N. S
I meant "What do you propose..." stupid computer did not see the problem...
Alexey N. Solofnenko wrote:
So, would do you propose? Is it something like:
The target mutual exclusion seems static and nobody should be changing
it from an outside (only build script developer should know about
the
So, would do you propose? Is it something like:
The target mutual exclusion seems static and nobody should be changing
it from an outside (only build script developer should know about them).
On the other hand adding even more ANT constructs for every small detail
seems an overkill. If we a
Alexey: Since the Executor classname itself is
specified as an option, rather than in a buildfile, my
opinion would be that specifications that interact
with an Executor should be externally configurable.
At the same time it would be nice to maintain Target
exclusivity information with the target
10 matches
Mail list logo
