gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Martin Cooper" <>
Subject RE: System Info (was: Speed of brutus)
Date Sat, 03 Apr 2004 18:51:32 GMT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam R. B. Jack []
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 7:34 AM
> To: Gump code and data
> Subject: Re: System Info (was: Speed of brutus)
> Folk,
> When both Stefano and Leo both misinterpret me, I realize I failed to
> communicate yet again. English truly ought not be counted as my first
> language (despite being born a Brit. ;-)
> You triggered off this:
> > As I'm sure you are aware ... there is a strong feeling on this
> list that
> no
> > Java pre-requisite ought exist, so Gump can be run in a 'clean'
> environment
> > w/o worrying about CLASSPATHs and such.
> But didn't seem to register this, which was part of the same paragraph.
> > (Might seem odd for a Java Builder,
> > but Gump may do more/other than Java one day). That said, you
> seem to have
> > cleverly worked around that. So long as Python Gump generates
> it, compiles
> > it, and runs it -- I can't see folks objecting.
> where (1) I agree it is odd [I was being polite] for a Java Builder not to
> want Java, but then explained it and (2) I agree that this worked
> around any
> objection. Heck, I never even said they were my objections, I was just
> trying to summarize what I understood from prior threads/comments on this
> list.
> So, for the record (to try to clear up any miscommunication):
> - I agreed from the start that this was a nice to have. I said that
> 'ant --debug' might display it, but that I didn't know how to get it
> directly without writing Java. (Seems others don't either.)
> - I didn't think this list (from comments I've heard supporting
> Python Gump)
> wanted to have to configure/install/environment a Java compiler, but they
> are happy for Python to auto-discover and use one [clearly].
> - I agreed that this solution is consistent with the purist (some
> might say
> bootstrap) approach, of starting with pure Python.
> - All in all, I agreed this was a good solution to the requirement, and
> fitting within what I understood as the philosophy.
> That all said, let's please clarify (because it came up again with C, I
> believe) and I don't want to be assuming that I understand the
> views of this
> community:
> - Do folks want a pure Python Gump, that one can download & run directly?
> [This solution investigates and locates tools in the environment and uses
> what it finds, even bootstrapping with those to build more of it's own
> tools.]
> - Or, are folks ok with Gump having other language components,
> and requiring
> a build prior to being able to run it. Any such build would need to be
> automated so we could deploy remote Gump agents. (Clearly this approach is
> achievable, traditional Gump did it, and clearly one could use
> ant in order
> to build Java, and perhaps C, etc.)
> I prefer the Python approach (even if I do get called a purist and not a
> pragmatist, this time. ;). That said, I could live with either.

+1. To both of the above sentences. ;-)

Martin Cooper

> regards,
> Adam
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message