gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Adam R. B. Jack" <aj...@apache.org>
Subject NAnt and Gump -- getting closer...
Date Tue, 07 Sep 2004 14:51:43 GMT
All,

I think I led Clayton down a false path, by me not knowing that bin/NAnt.exe
was "mini NAnt". (Sorry Clayton, you kept saying bin/NAnt.exe and I was
clueless since (to me) that just seemed like a built NAnt, I didn't know it
was mini-NAnt pre-stored in CVS.) All ... I am struggling here 'cos I'm no
expert in what you know (NAnt/DotNet) only in Gump.

I really want a good blend of what your platform requires, and what I (Gump)
can do, but it is hard to get that blend since people come with
pre-conceived notions/understandings (like mine not knowing mini-NAnt). I
feel we are getting closer to understanding each other's areas, I feel we
have a clearer understanding of how Gump will use NAnt, the artifacts it
creates, and the tests it runs. I hope this translates to one simple
implementation (that is easy for me/Gumpers to code :-) and that we don't
keep finding better ways. Still, we are working through the details, we are
getting there.

I think the answer is 'who decides what is the right approach', and I feel
it is the NAnt team. Gump has some good notions, but it is trying to emulate
a developer (albeit in a clean environment) not dictate strategy. As such,
if bin/NAnt.exe is the right way, I assume we use it. That said, it might be
easiest [for me to code] for there to be a script (called bootstrap or
mini-NAnt w/ .bat&.sh) that calls the bin/NAnt.exe min-NAnt so we don't have
to special code that.

I think the full bootstrap process (as described by Jaraslow) where we build
NAnt, build it's components, re-build NAnt is correct. That is pretty much
what Ant does (they have a bootstrap-ant project and later an 'ant'
project.) I think we can get to this. It seems right.

I'd like to have the nant.xml metadata describe a bootstrap-nant project
(maybe we call it mini-nant) that calls the script (that uses mini-NAnt to
build NAnt.exe, wherever that is) and then we use that to build the next
projects. If there really is no purpose for a script I could add an <exe
element to Gump, but that worries me (only a little). BTW: What (and where)
are the assemblies that come out of running mini-NAnt? How would one then
invoke them to be full NAnt?

As for the GAC, and the DEVPATH environment variable, we don't have a
perfect answer yet -- do we? Clayton was wondering if we could use
<References inside NAnt, and Gump write a pre-defined include file [it does
something similar when it run Maven]. Does this idea have legs? Will it work
for compiles and tests? Gump would like to be transparent to projects, if a
convention exists that it can be, but if not we perhaps we can be creative,
like this. I won't work on this more until we determine the final approach.

BTW: Any help/descriptions that could be added to this page (blank, waiting
for content) would be appreciated.

    http://wiki.apache.org/gump/GumpBuilders/NAntBuilder

As for <output -- it exists (as do <artifact and <jar) and ought work.
Artifact and Jar are simply aliases (right now) with no extra meaning. What
types were you thinking of Stefan? type="library" and|or "executable" or
something?

As for language="csharp", if there truly is no significant difference
between the various languages, I am more than game to do
platform="dotnet|java". I could either add a platform, to supplement
language, or replace. What do you think?

BTW: Ought we attempt to contribute metadata for the mini-nant up to nant
projects (including log4net, etc.) and see if we can get that working from
within Gump? I think that makes a good first goal.

regards,

Adam
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clayton Harbour" <claytonharbour@sporadicism.com>
To: "Adam R. B. Jack" <ajack@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 8:51 PM
Subject: RE: [nant-dev] Re: NAnt


Hi Adam,

I did not realize that you didn't know about the bin\NAnt.exe.  Is that
something that will suite your needs better than the .bat script?  If so
maybe we should look at using that, but if you would really prefer a
complete rebuild then we can keep looking at the batch/ shell scripts.  Let
me know what you think.


Cheers,


Clayton


-----Original Message-----
From: Adam R. B. Jack [mailto:ajack@apache.org]
Sent: Mon 9/6/2004 1:16 PM
To: Clayton Harbour; Jaroslaw Kowalski;
nant-developers@lists.sourceforge.net; general@gump.apache.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] Re: NAnt
> I was talking with Adam the other day and he suggested that a batch/ shell
script that built NAnt > from source might be a little better than relying
on the mini-NAnt.exe.  I believe ant uses
> something similar to bootstrap itself so my understanding is that this
fits in better with the gump
> philosophy.

And just for completion ... mainly, I just didn't get what bin/NAnt.exe was,
or how it worked. I didn't understand it was for bootstrap. Still, building
from scratch each time does fit Gump's philosophy.

regards

Adam






---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org


Mime
View raw message