Dominique Devienne wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Steve Loughran [mailto:steve_l@iseran.com]
>>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: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>
>  
>
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)

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: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org