On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, John Casey wrote: (Hope I'm not too late)
+1 If marmalade breaks between beta releases, all the people that actually use it will tell us and this will give a good indication of how much it's used. -- Kenney > Hi, > > As I'm sure most of you are aware, we have shipped all of the Maven 2 > releases so far with support for a scripting language called Marmalade. > This language was meant to replace Jelly, and provide a bridge for those > developers with custom Jelly-based plugins to migrate onto M2. > > As the user interest in M2 soars, I see very few people trying to use > Marmalade. It seems that the language is still too immature, and the > runtime model of M2 is just too different for a Jelly-compatible mojo > language to be useful. Actually, those of you who keep close tabs on the > users list will undoubtedly notice that Marmalade is in fact causing a > negative net effect on M2 uptake. I believe it is the only mojo > development documentation we've published for M2, and that document no > longer produces a working example, because the latest changes to the > mojo descriptor API have broken the descriptor metadata in Marmalade. > > I'm the sole developer on the Marmalade project currently, and I haven't > had too many people asking about it. While I'm still interested in it, I > have to say that I'm not sure when I'll be able to give it the attention > it deserves WRT integrating proper Ant support. And that's to say > nothing of the integration hooks for supporting Marmalade mojos in M2. > > Therefore, I suggest that we remove all official support of Marmalade as > a M2 mojo language, and let the Marmalade project take it over. We > should remove the mojo development guide that is Marmalade oriented, and > stop mentioning it as a viable option for mojo development. At the same > time, I'm going to be working (in the next week or so) on Ant-based mojo > support, which will effectively replace Marmalade for 99% of the use > cases I've heard. > > Marmalade will still be available as a mojo language, we just won't be > supporting it from this project...and maintenance of this integration > will happen on a very different timescale. > > So, I'm putting this up for a vote. I'll leave it open for 72 hours (not > that I think we need it), and reassess then. In this case, abstention > signals assent. If you don't veto, I'll simply remove it. > > [] +1 - strongly support removal > [] +0 - support removal in principle > [] -0 - oppose removal in principle > [] -1 - strongly oppose removal > > Here's my +1 for removal. > > Thanks, > > John > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------------ Output from pgp ------------ > Signature by unknown keyid: 0x9C0EFF85 > > -- Kenney Westerhof http://www.neonics.com GPG public key: http://www.gods.nl/~forge/kenneyw.key --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
