gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Adam R. B. Jack" <>
Subject Re: Move public onto JDK 1.5?
Date Mon, 23 May 2005 14:23:49 GMT

> On Sun, 22 May 2005, Adam R. B. Jack <> wrote:
> > Does it make sense to move public (with nagging) to JDK 1.5?
> Not yet, IMHO.

Ok. I just didn't want us to give up on all the Gump flavours w/o having
asked the question.

> > Given that we can't support all configurations, and given the level
> > of turmoil the JAXP 1.3 seems to be causing, ought we not just dive
> > in w/ both feet & embrace change?
> I find this time quite interesting since we see projects embrace JAXP
> 1.3 and in particular DOM3 at very different paces.

Yeah, in fact, I think it is one of the biggest deals in my memory of Gump.
It has started to make me realize that the 'events' such as this, big
discontinuities/big disruptions, are truely newsworthy ... and perhaps ought
be publicized. Gump 'represents'a reasonable chunk of base Java code,
classes that are (no doubt) underneath a lot of Java applications, and if
this base suffers badly from a change, that will ripple significantly.

I know you blogged about this Stefan [1], but I wonder if we ought have
brought it up to the ASF board, and if the ASF board ought consider taking
action based of the findings. I don't know what could (or should) be done,
but I wonder if we need to be more vocal about the findings. It seems that
without nagging Gump is a passive observer, and -- like the tree falling in
the woods w/ nobody to see it -- did it happen?

[I know I'm overlooking the human factor here, the people who read the
output, but I think this is far fewer than the data could interest (we need
to market this information source).]

> > Since (I believe) JDK ought be compile compatible w/ older JDKs,
> Do you really belive this was true?  Or is this just what you whish
> would be true?  ;-)

Yup, bad wording. I don't beleive it ('cos I've learned that much from Gump
interacting w/ JDKs, from over the years) but I sure do wish it were true.
Gump has taught me that discontinuities happen -- even in the best
maintained projects, with the best intentions -- they have to be allowed
for "progress". That said, unintentional discontinuities are the pits, a
waste for everybody involved that slows progress, and I feel Gump needs to
help spotlight any such things. Who knows, maybe Sun would respond to ASF
highlighting a bunch of discontinuities. Maybe a dialogue ought occur.

> > Seems relatively healthy, and not too painful. That said, I'm not
> > expert, I'm just asking a question.

I thought about this (unfortunately) right after Brutus went down, so I
couldn't check what I was hoping. Kinda sad how the data disappears so
quickly. I figured a few nags might cause a few "enums" to be renamed, and
add some value speeding up the conversion. I'd not considered the nagatives
that you see. Time might help there, like you said, and we can give a little
to see if it does. Perhaps we ought nag (once a week/month) from a JDK 1.5

All in all, I find the handling of the discontinuities -- the recording of
them, the bringing things to light -- the primary role of Gump, and I sure
wish we had a better way of documenting it/publicizing it. I think
individual failures in Gump (once stable in itself) ought generate a JIRA
entry (or database record) that gets worked/tracked to resolution. With some
level of consistency Gump's information would accumulate, not be lost, and
as a whole would be far more effective/valuable.

I think there is a lot to explore here, a lot to discuss, I just have a day
on diaper duty and breakfast to attend to [hence the no doubt
distracted/incomplete sentances].




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

View raw message