forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Forrest uses 'old' version of Ant
Date Sun, 27 Oct 2002 14:15:43 GMT

Jeff Turner wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 09:55:43AM +0100, Steven Noels wrote:
> ...
> 
>>I like the shbat approach - just like I like the ability to install Ant 
>>as a separate app instead of just using the jars.
>>
>>We should come up with a lean & mean executable version of Forrest, 
>>depending on Ant already being installed. If what remains of Centipede 
>>inside Forrest can't support this, we have some cleanup to do.
>>
>>And if we want to provide a live webapp version for local development, 
>>and Tomcat isn't lightweight enough to embed inside Forrest, why not use 
>>Jetty?

Ahem, maybe I wasn't clear, that's what I said too.

I agree with what you say, just adding the fact that we should remember 
that many users, and many more now that also non-java developers will 
use it, want to be able to not have to install anything.

You want to see the Apache site all done in Forrest?

Then we better make it easy as just typing build.sh, and it's not my 
suggestion, I'm just forwarding.

> That's just what I'd like to investigate (after the maven plugin).

I'm investigating about using an even smaller server, I'll let you know 
ASAP.

> Another consideration: if we don't need to copy from src/documentation/*
> to build/tmp/*, then do we really Ant's capabilities at all?  I don't
> know.. we'll see.

Ok, keep it in mind, I think too that Ant might not be needed for the 
simple distro (ie no bot).

[Nicola Ken - mailing from Germany on a GSM 9.6k connection]

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message