On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:15, Steve Loughran wrote:
> I still think that because this only an issue when we load in-VM with
> failonerror=true, that we arent going to break functionality for any
> currently correct configuration of the <java> task. Anyone who has the
> fork=false, failonerror=true needs to be notified right now that that
> combination is invalid. Either we stop that combination from being valid
> (throw BuildException, warn in big letters) or we do what we can to
> implement the behavior.
Well I don't think we can implement the behaviour so a big warning and/or a
BuildException sounds like the way to go ;)
--
Cheers,
Pete
---------------------------------------------
We shall not cease from exploration, and the
end of all our exploring will be to arrive
where we started and know the place for the
first time -- T.S. Eliot
---------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
