gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [PATCH][gump.py] Going forward
Date Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:08:44 GMT

Sam Ruby wrote, On 22/04/2003 17.31:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 
>>
>> IE:
>>
>>  urllib.urlopen(repo+project+'-'+version+'.jar')
>>
>> shoud work.
>>
>> Is this what you are aiming at?
> 
> Another way to look at what I am asking... what is the feasiblity of a 
> ruper.py?

Good suggestion.
You are aiming at not using Java at all, right? It makes sense.

Someone privately asked me why use Ruper in Gump at all for normal 
builds, since we could just make Gump ingnore any jars it would have to 
supply and make Ant, Centipede, Maven or whatever take care of that.

The problm remains though with the gump-Gump usage, ie setting all the 
classpath beforehand.

Ok, this is what I'll do: I'll start using ruper.py with the assumptions 
I did before. It would be very simple. If-when we will need more, we can 
always eventually call the Java Ruper from it. In fact the idea could be 
to use the the Java Ruper only if Java is not there or it's not 
requested by the user or the build is of type "Gump".
But let's not put the cart before the horse, it's just ruper.py for now.

> Perhaps one that does not hard code the string '.jar'.

Ruper now doesn't, so that would not too.

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


Mime
View raw message