river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au>
Subject Re: Health of the Apache River Project
Date Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:11:28 GMT
It's not so much that ant is the problem, more so that classdep needs to 
be maintained for new java features to correctly determine 
dependencies.   But then it cannot determing Class.forName dependencies...

Tim Blackmann & I contributed the ClassDep Java 5 language support code 
based on ASM.



On 11/04/2014 5:40 AM, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2014, at 2:35 PM, Rafał Krupiński<rafal.krupinski@sorcersoft.com>
>> Dnia 2014-04-10, czw o godzinie 14:40 -0400, Greg Trasuk pisze:
>>> Hi Rafal:
>>> On Apr 10, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Rafał Krupiński<rafal.krupinski@sorcersoft.com>
>>>> I think you missed the point.
>>> Could be.  I guess the question is, what are you wanting to contribute?  If you’re
going to debug or modify current code, then yes, the build system is an obstacle that you
need to overcome.  In which case, maybe changing parts of it could be a great first contribution.
 I’m just saying that’s going to be a pretty big job, no matter who does it.
>> If you want patches and committers it shouldn't be a problem to change a
>> few lines, or even half a class in the core River. But it's not, so you
>> get no patches nor new committers.
> Maybe you can explain at this point.  Is the problem that  you can’t build, at all,
to test your changes?  Is this because you don’t have ANT?  It seems it’s because  you
don’t know how to use the ANT build system, which I can understand.  But also, you need
to understand that there are people who have no idea how to use Maven either.
> So, overall, how can we simplify things if there are always new and different build tools/standards
that some people know and others don’t?
> Gregg
>>>   And it’s going to be a contentious subject (as it always has been in the
past), because every developer has their favourite build system.
>> It's not the issue here.
>> (...)
>>> Don’t get me wrong - I’m not defending the current project structure.
>> Then I guess I don't understand what are you doing.
>> Regards,
>> Rafał

View raw message