Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2002, <bodewig@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>> timeout support for <java>
>>
>
> This has a couple of side effects that I want your opinion on before I
> close the bug.
>
> timeout for forked java has been trivial, but I had to change
> ExecuteJava considerably to add it for the in-VM mode.
>
> The main change is that Ant will now run the class in a separate
> thread, if a timeout value has been specified. I'm not sure whether
> our log system can deal with it (it may receive output from a thread
> that is not associated with a task).
It will treat this as non-task output and log as if generated by the project
object. It would be possible to add a method to project to inform it about which
task is associated with a new thread. This is currently done in the taskStarted
method.
>
> If timeout has been triggered, all ExecuteJava does right now is to
> interrupt() the spawned thread - which means it will not do too much
> for run-away threads. stop() or even destroy() look more than a
> little dangerous in this context.
>
> But then again, run-away threads without this timeout feature would
> make Ant hang anyway.Timeout: killed the sub-process
Yes, at least Ant will end and and clean it up then. Perhaps the message
Timeout: killed the sub-process
should be a little bit less definitive, perhaps
Timeout: sub-process interrupted.
Conor
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
|