Because my stuff has to run in an existing infrastructure with specific constraints. However, we're about to make some changes to that, and then a BuildListener would make more sense.
Erik Hatcher wrote: > > Ken, > > Curiously, why aren't you using a BuildListener to accomplish this instead? > > Erik > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ken Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 12:08 PM > Subject: Re: TryCatchFinallyTask ? > > > I'm certainly in favor of something like this. > > > > In my case, I still want the build to fail, but I > > want to send an e-mail to a text pager. Right now, I > > do this by doing an 'echo' to a file before a > > task starts, and a 'delete' of that file when the > > task finishes. After the build, I run Ant again > > with a different XML file that uses 'available' > > to find any of these temp files. If it finds any, it > > sends the e-mail. Crude, but it works... > > > > I'd much rather have the build do it's own thing... > > > > Conor MacNeill wrote: > > > > > > Peter Donald wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I probably would have if it had been implemented as an antcall rather > than as > > > > a container ;) > > > > > > I quite like the idea. I agree that error handling is pretty poor. We > > > can see that from the proliferation of failonerror attributes which have > > > been growing. People do want to continue running their builds when > > > things blow up. This would make most failonerror attributes obsolete, > > > though I don't think I'd suggest deprecating them :-) > > > > > > Of course, the same argument could be used for the "if" and "unless" > > > attributes and we may be on a slippery slope there (slippery slopes can > > > be fun though). > > > > > > You mentioned antcall, but the I'd say of of the most common patterns is > > > going to be: > > > > > > <try> > > > <antcall target="main"/> > > > </try> > > > <catch> > > > <echo message="Aw, my build broke"/> > > > </catch> > > > > > > <tbody> doesn't really work for me. I thought of <checked>. The other > > > possibility might be a structure like this > > > > > > <try> > > > <tasks> > > > <echo> > > > </tasks> > > > <catch> > > > <echo> > > > </catch> > > > <finally> > > > <echo> > > > </finally> > > > </try> > > > > > > Whaddayareckon? > > > > > > Conor > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
