On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Adam Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter wrote: "revert the script test that showed up the problem in
> the first place". Sorry, but what does this mean to the
> non-antdev-initiated?
I committed a patch that was supposed to improve performance and lower
memory consumptio
this fix.
regards
Adam
-Original Message-
From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 2:54 AM
To: Ant Developers List
Subject: Re: FW: ConcurrentModificationException
Yep, the import task works again.
We probably should revert the script
test that showed up
On 15 Jul 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We probably should revert the script
> test that showed up the problem in the first
> place.
+1
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional command
Yep, the import task works again.
We probably should revert the script
test that showed up the problem in the first
place.
Peter
On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 09:35, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> With a loop like
>
> for (int i = 0; i < children.size(); i++) {
> Object o = childre
With a loop like
for (int i = 0; i < children.size(); i++) {
Object o = children.get(i);
instead of
Iterator it = children.iterator();
while (it.hasNext()) {
Object o = it.next();
we should be on the save side, I think. childr
Forwarding to developers list.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:07 am, Adam Jack wrote:
> Hi.
>
> We have an ant task that "imports" a build file into this run. Recently it
> has started failing (on Gump), i.e. w/ latest ant code.
>
> Target.java: 316 is the next() below.
>
> public void execute() thr
