gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <>
Subject Re: gump issues under winblows and a suggestion...
Date Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:28:41 GMT
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Ant files are XML and transforming to them seems to be more natural. Ant 
> isn't the most kind thing in the world for its "Hey this crap broke" 
> messages, but it is FAR better than cmd.exe or bash in this respect.

Costin already started something along these lines:

> Anyhow, I'm just curious what problems there are with this approach.  As 
> my level of pain increases I'll probably experiment with this, but I'm 
> curious if others have thought of this and what the downsides are...

That may be a value use case for a large portion of the portion of the 
potential "marketplace" for gump.


* I want to fully bootstrap.  In my case, I want to build ant from 
source and use that version later in the build.

* I want to be able to easily reproduce problems outside of the 
environment generated by Gump.  Many times I've found it handy to be 
able to send somebody a shell script or a batch file along with a set of 
jars to reproduce a problem that they are *sure* must be Gump's fault.

* Leaky abstractions.  I've always found ant calling ant to be 
confusing, particularly when it comes to what properties can be passed 
and what can be modified.  But that may just be me.

* Modifying JDK levels and/or bootclasspath.  A persistent requirement 
(despite never having been implemented, so take it with a grain of salt) 
is to do a build with different portions of the build at different JDK 
levels.  What is a real requirement, however, is the ability to modify 
the bootclasspath between job steps.

All presented merely as food for thought.  They reasons may or may not 
be applicable to you.  But there is no reason why Gump can't support 
multiple targets - it already does so with bash and win2k.

- Sam Ruby

View raw message