forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From d...@multitask.com.au
Subject Re: Forrest uses 'old' version of Ant
Date Sun, 27 Oct 2002 22:51:48 GMT
I'm +1 on the multiple distributions of Forrest.
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Work:      http://www.multitask.com.au
Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers


Steven Noels <stevenn@outerthought.org> wrote on 27/10/2002 07:55:43 PM:

> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 
> > I am discussing about using Forrest in a project, and they just said 
> > that having to install Forrest is a no-no.
> > 
> > They want to have all Forrest checked in with every site, so that the 
> > doc writer can get from CVS, and run build.bat/.sh.
> 
> > It has been discussed before, I agree it sucks, but it's what our 
users 
> > need.
> 
> Aren't we overgeneralizing here? 'They', 'our users',... or just the few 

> opinionated ones that believe their way is the way?
> 
> 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?
> 
> </Steven>
> -- 
> Steven Noels                            http://outerthought.org/
> Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
> stevenn@outerthought.org                      stevenn@apache.org
> 

> ForwardSourceID:NT00087342 

Mime
View raw message