if/unless on fail??

[Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>]

Hi,

ages ago I remember some discussion about adding if/unless attributes to fail 
but I guess it must have KBed. Couldn't spot the reason - can anyone 
enlighten me?

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

*------------------------------------------------------*
|  Hlade's Law: If you have a difficult task, give it  |
|     to a lazy person -- they will find an easier     |
|                    way to do it.                     |
*------------------------------------------------------*

Re: if/unless on fail??

[Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 22:36, Glenn McAllister wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Peter Donald <do...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Couldn't spot the reason - can anyone enlighten me?
> >
> > "All tasks or no task" and "all tasks" has been rejected IIRC.

ahh - yes - that sounds right ;)
 
> That was pretty much my position.  I agreed with the person who
> was pushing for if/unless on fail that it would make life a lot
> easier in the case of wanting to kill the build early if a
> particular resource was missing.  My concern, however, was
> opening up that slippery slope, so my -1.

hmm true. I guess I can't see where fail tasks would not require if/unless. 
Is there any (supported) use case where this is so? I just went to use it for 
the first time today and found it somewhat cumbersome. Not cumbersome because 
of lacking features in ant but because the task is not useful as a standalone 
task but has to be munged into an ugly target construct.

> That being said, I'm willing to conceed that if we get a
> concensus vote on changing fail to have if/unless, I'll go along
> with it.  Its an unusual enough situation that an exception can
> be justified, and seeing as we "thought police" are vigorously on
> the prowl, it shouldn't go any further. :-)

;)

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

------------------------------------------
I just hate 'yes' men, don't you Smithers?
------------------------------------------

Re: if/unless on fail??

[Glenn McAllister <gl...@somanetworks.com>]

Stefan Bodewig wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Peter Donald <do...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Couldn't spot the reason - can anyone enlighten me?
>
> "All tasks or no task" and "all tasks" has been rejected IIRC.
>
> Stefan

That was pretty much my position.  I agreed with the person who
was pushing for if/unless on fail that it would make life a lot
easier in the case of wanting to kill the build early if a
particular resource was missing.  My concern, howevere, was
opening up that slippery slope, so my -1.

That being said, I'm willing to conceed that if we get a
concensus vote on changing fail to have if/unless, I'll go along
with it.  Its an unusual enough situation that an exception can
be justified, and seeing as we "thought police" are vigorously on
the prowl, it shouldn't go any further. :-)

Glenn McAllister
SOMA Networks, Inc.

Re: if/unless on fail??

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Peter Donald <do...@apache.org> wrote:

> Couldn't spot the reason - can anyone enlighten me?

"All tasks or no task" and "all tasks" has been rejected IIRC.

Stefan