Dominique Devienne wrote:
I see that both have their benefits. trycatch is slightly nicer in that you can do the catch right there, or set a property and use it the way sequential would work... I think that that is true from looking at the examples posted. Sequential has the advantage of not needing to get the ant-contrib folks to give it to us (which I seem to remember was the sticking point b4)-----Original Message----- From: Steve Loughran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 11:23 AM To: Ant Developers List Subject: Re: failonerror; general solution
Dale Anson wrote:
What's the difference in use case between this and the try/catch from
ant-contrib or antelope? I'd suggest grabbing the try/catch from either,
and making it a core task. Just judging from the e-mail that I get, the
try/catch task in antelope is one of the main reasons people download
it.
I am +1 to trycatch, because it gives you better failure modes than just
'ignore'; like the option to rollback or warn.
I'm +0 to trycatch, and +1 to enhancing <sequential> myself. --DD
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If try-catch can be pulled in quick I'd be +1 for that +0 for sequential, and the oposite if it is going to take weeks to get try catch in.... Nothing prevents us from adding try catch later for additional functionality. If it isnt' going in 1.6 then I am for waiting on try/catch cause we probably have another year before 1.7 comes out :)
-Gus
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
