On Thu, 17 May 2007, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> its probably simpler if you only handle one nested task (rather than
> a sequence), as people may have more expectations of rollback in
> such a situation.
A single task is enough anyway since people can always use
as the nested ta
--- Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actaully, I did not see the manual page ;-)
> I just looked at the code - and misread it
>
> It does not do what I said,
> the task just ignores any failures until
> the end and then throws an exception
> if any failed.
>
> I guess the name of
Actaully, I did not see the manual page ;-)
I just looked at the code - and misread it
It does not do what I said,
the task just ignores any failures until
the end and then throws an exception
if any failed.
I guess the name of the task confused me.
Peter
On 5/17/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL
--- Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that we should wait for the ant 1.7.1 branch
> to
> be made.
>
> The retry task container is similar to containers in
> ant-contrib (limit, outofdate, for and if).
>
> There is actually a task called "relentless" that
> executes a sequence o
I think that we should wait for the ant 1.7.1 branch to
be made.
The retry task container is similar to containers in
ant-contrib (limit, outofdate, for and if).
There is actually a task called "relentless" that
executes a sequence of nested tasks, retrying the
sequence until all the tasks have
Kevin Jackson wrote:
Hi all,
Does anyone object to adding a retry task container to ant core?
I've made a few alterations to the code I attached to the previous email.
The only worry I have is if it's too 'workflowy', if you know what I mean.
I'm happy-ish with it...its probably simpler if
Hi all,
Does anyone object to adding a retry task container to ant core?
I've made a few alterations to the code I attached to the previous email.
The only worry I have is if it's too 'workflowy', if you know what I mean.
Kev
---
