On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Well now that we are finally getting to an agreement
> on <macrodef> I think it is time to start a new round
> of rocous over <local>, (not enough traffic today ;-P )
We don't seem to be too successful in generating responses these
days. 8-)
I'm a bit torn between releasing 1.6 without any local support and
trying to get enough support for it to delay 1.6 further. I think
local is necessary to make macrodef as powerful as it should be, but
wouldn't want to wait another two months to finally get committer
support for it into 1.6.
> I still fill a little unconfortable on using <local>
> for defining local-scopes (which was the original usage)
> and using <local> to define values that must be different
> on different threads of execution (i.e., Java ThreadLocals).
Hmm,
<parallel>
<sequential>
<local property="a">
...
</local>
</sequential>
<sequential>
<local property="a">
...
</local>
</sequential>
</parallel>
should give something predictable - or something that is completely
undefined, much like what we'd currently have for references.
The above looks like a "user's fault" situation, until you let
<macrodef>'s using <local>s into the game.
<macrodef name="foo">
<sequential>
<local name="my-temporary-variable">
...
</local>
</sequential>
</macrodef>
with multiple invocations of <name> inside <parallel>. For a scenario
like this, <local> implicitly promises to be Thread local. At least
it does for me.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
