gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [RT] Gump 3.0
Date Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:03:17 GMT
Adam R. B. Jack wrote:
> Ok, here is my thinking on how we proceed towards Gump 3.0, i.e.:
> 
>     1) Metadata Gathering
>     2) Processing (Build/Sync/Update)
>     3) Results/Presentation/History Query/Analysis
> 
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Fnor *now* ...
> 
> 1) Phase One (Metadata Gathering) is simply the way to get XML documention
> into a local file system for Gump to process. Eventually this could be
> crawlers (etc.) that parse GOMs and POMs, but (for now) the CVS update &
> HTTP gets are tolerable. [If anybody has an itch to tackle this first, speak
> up, but I think it is a reasonable/significant amount of work and (IMHO) can
> wait a little while longer.]

+1

> 2) Phase Two (Building) is what we currently have as core, but that outputs
> to an historical database (plus some files for those w/o huge databases). It
> will not do RDF/RSS/Atom/Notification/XHTML Presentation (or XDOCS). It will
> not do Stats (neither XHTML presentation nor internal to DBM) nor will it do
> XRef (XHTML).

+1

> 3) Phase Three  (Analysis/Communication) is a whole new world; re-writting
> the 'will not do' list from above from the results database. This could be
> Python code, or Cocoon, or ...
> 
> I'd like to focus my time on (2) and request that others help with (3).

I'm game. I can take ownership of #3.

> Question: We currently run JDK1.5 and Kaffe off TRUNK not LIVE. Ought we
> change this? 

yeah, it makes sense.

> Alternatively, ought we perform this Gump work in a separate
> branch. I think I can add to the current w/o too much instability, then
> remove stuff when needed. I'm game to listen to others opinions/concerns
> though.

Currently, Dynagump is the code name for "#3" and does not depend on any 
code from Gump (only on a common database schema).

I think we keep it the way it is for now, we can move stuff back and 
forth later on, thanks to SVN.

> [FWIIW: Personally, I'd love to get back to NAnt building except that Mono
> is still my roadblock.I think Gump 3.0 ought be far less resource bound, and
> it ought help us simplify running/operating Gump. As such, I hope it leads
> to more users and hence more hands to help with NAnt, etc.]

I personally would love to see Mono stuff being gumped as well, but it's 
a low priority for me ATM.

-- 
Stefano.


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


Mime
View raw message