ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Cook" <>
Subject RE: Updated design docs
Date Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:33:07 GMT
> -----Original Message-----

> On 1/9/01 5:50 AM, "James Cook" <> wrote:
> > I think this is a nice document, but it can hardly be considered as a
> > requirements document. There is way too much *how* things will
> work as opposed
> > to *what* needs to be accomplished.
> From: James Duncan Davidson []
> I don't think that we need to make such distinctions. If we agree in text
> how things should work, then we're good.


> > I don't want to rabble-rouse (sp?), but isn't James simply documenting
> > AntEater? I realize he has glommed onto the workspace concept
> introduced in
> > AntFarm, but other than that, it looks more like a personal
> design document.
> Am I being asked to go away thank you very much again? :)

I'm not sure where this comment comes from... :|

> > How should someone with a totally different approach submit
> their ideas? For
> > example, I think my proposal has merit by being able to handle
> the concept of
> > a workspace as simply another Task. And an optional Task, at
> that. Should I
> > produce a more detailed design document similar to James'?
> Should *all* of the
> > proposal submitters do the same?
> If you have a totally different vision of how Ant should be, comment here.
> If that vision isn't taking off, then maybe its not a) well understood
> enough (which I doubt), or b) maybe it's not what Ant wants to be.

So you are saying that a conceptual approach that you have not written is
"not what Ant wants to be". I received support from some people when I
posted my proposal. Please be aware that Ant does not exist as an entity
capable of deciding what *it* wants to be. That is the job of the
meritocracy (to quote Peter I believe).

> I understand itch scratching. I support it. However, if what you
> want to do
> is not what Ant is trying to be, then you have to consider other
> mechanisms
> of scratching that itch.

Look, I don't have a problem taking my ideas somewhere else, but I don't
think we have had a glimmer of proper debate on the technical merits of the
other proposals. The only stones that you cast my way were your "feelings"
that a design that generalizes the concepts of a Task the way I do is a
"bad" thing. That is ridiculous. Give me some criticism that is based in
something other than your "feelings".

I have a working prototype that functions. It shows how simple the code can
become when one realizes that a Project and a Target are simply Tasks
themselves. It also has a node naming framework so that nodes can be called
multiple times. It has a property system that offers scoped variable
capabilities. It is very script-friendly. It works very well as a build
system, but there is nothing in Frantic that prevents the system from being
used for other purposes. If you want to argue the technical merits of these
items "bring it on".

> > Why don't we spend a collective hour defining what a
> requirements document is?
> > I was waiting to see a req. doc before spending my time on a
> design document
> > in order to make certain I address each requirement fully.
> How many layers of process are we going to put in so that we can have
> everyone propose something? This isn't a popularity contest. At least it
> shouldn't be.

I disagree completely. It is a popularity contest, and it should be. The set
of ideas that is most comfortable with the most people should win. Isn't
that what this is all about? We haven't even begun to analyze the strengths
and weaknesses of each proposal.

It seems that most people who have a vote that counts (and some of us that
don't) have submitted proposals. It also seems that these people find it
difficult to put their egos aside to actually evaluate the other proposals,
and post their criticisms in a way that each proposer can respond to.

I find the current "process" to be nothing of the sort. OK James,should we
just sit on our thumbs until you produce the document that will determine
what Ant 2.0 becomes? This is the most political B.S. I have ever been
exposed to in an opensource setting. I guess I am naive to assume that this
sort of thing only happened in corporations.

What drives your self-serving tendencies? Is it ego? Is it that the other
ideas truly suck? Is it a future business deal pending on your vision? Is it
a desire for control? We want to know.


View raw message