jakarta-alexandria-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Scott Sanders" <ssand...@nextance.com>
Subject RE: problems w/ gump
Date Tue, 05 Feb 2002 17:57:35 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 3:18 AM
> To: Alexandria Developers List
> Subject: Re: problems w/ gump
> Josh Lucas wrote:
> >
> > ok, one more time answering myself.  I figured out why the 
> cvs element 
> > wasn't showing up.  It's because it is now a child of the module 
> > element as opposed to the project element.
> Sorry about that.  This is based on a suggestion from Jason.
> If you are watching vindico, Scott is moving it back.  (perhaps only
> temporarily)

I am moving temporarily since my code only really knows about projects
right now.

> My feeling at the moment is that Jason is right.  Independent 
> of how the code is implemented, modules come from places 
> (like cvs) and contain projects.  Projects are either 
> installed or contain build instructions.

I do feel that the <cvs/> element belongs in the <module/> element, but
I *hate* the fact that the project is not explicitly saying that it
depends on it.  Not all projects defined in a module depend on the
<cvs/> being executed.  This is want I want to fix eventually.

> To make things clearer, I've also been tempted to have 
> different names for things which are installed (<package> 
> perhaps) from things which are built (<project>).  Then we 
> can build a set of parallel definitions for every project... 
> installed vs built, and people can construct their profiles 
> and/or workspaces based on their choice.

I totally believe that the <package/> element should exist.  It is a
complete subset of project, correct?  I think it should be explicit that
a project can depend on it, but it is just a resource to be used, and
has no dependencies itself correct?  +1 on changing the name.

> > I was also thinking of two possible adjustments to the 
> script element. 
> > Why 'force' a project to have a .sh script?  Perhaps we could drop 
> > that hard-coding in the bash.xsl file so any type of script 
> could be 
> > used.
> I only use this in one case... bootstrapping ant.  In the ant 
> cvs there are two files "bootstrap.sh" and "bootstrap.bat".  
> Since I build on both platforms, the project definition says
>    <script name="bootstrap"/>
> And the bash.xsl and win2k.xsl add the appropriate suffix.
> Suggestions?
> > Also, what about having another attribute which would allow for 
> > arguments to be passed to the script in a similar way that a target 
> > can be passed to ant.
> Cool.
> > I adjusted my copy of Gump to do both of these in order for 
> it to work 
> > here and all was well.  I can send you the simple patch if 
> you'd like.
> Patches are always welcome!
> - Sam Ruby


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:alexandria-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:alexandria-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>

View raw message