gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: Python Gump Worked...
Date Sun, 27 Apr 2003 19:44:49 GMT

Sam Ruby wrote, On 27/04/2003 18.48:
> It is not clear to me that there even will be a when this is 
> ready for use.  One may be able to simply build against the XML 
> definition.  Depends on the performance.

Not only. Well, this gen even now is not necessary to run Gump, but 
other systems that run after Gump might need to access the GOM (Gump 
object model). An XML dump of it may, I repeat /may/ be an easy way to 
do it, but we'll see.

What is sure is that is not needed now to run Gump, it's just an 
extra thing... hey, the name is misleading, I'll call it

> Please be aware that there is still much to do before this is a 
> replacement to java/xslt based gump.  Still, it is showing much promise. 
>  Failures now are accompanied by stack tracebacks.  Much better than 
> what one gets with batch files and shell scripts.  When done, user 
> oriented error messages will replace these tracebacks.
> One thing that is fun to play with in the meanwhile is gumpview.

Yup, and also, that shows the project dependencies and the 
propertirs needed to run builds.

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message