Someone's got to say it....it'll be me.
If you don't have the forking patience to wait for your forking tasks.....I
can't forking help you.
JT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dana Rice [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 6:40 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Don't want to wait for my forking tasks to complete
>
>
> Well fork you then!!! What if you put them in two separate
> targets and made
> your default target the second one.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Victor Ganora [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 4:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Don't want to wait for my forking tasks to complete
>
>
> I want to create a target that starts my servers. (One is
> tomcat, the
> other an EJB container. They are <java> and <wlrun> tasks
> respectively.)
> I've written the two subtasks and they each run fine. Then
> I grouped them
> into a separate empty task that depends on them both. The
> problem is that
> the first task (being a server) never returns, so the second
> task never
> starts.
> Yes, I'm using fork="true".
> Is there any way to have Ant start the threads separately
> and not wait for
> the result codes?
> I know I could put two invocations of Ant into a batch file
> and run that
> from the command line. (Or maybe with <exec>. Does it wait?),
> but that seems
> inelegant solution.
>
