> -----Original Message----- > From: Adam R. B. Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 7:34 AM > To: Gump code and data > Subject: Re: System Info (was: Speed of brutus) > > > Folk, > > When both Stefano and Leo both misinterpret me, I realize I failed to > communicate yet again. English truly ought not be counted as my first > language (despite being born a Brit. ;-) > > You triggered off this: > > > As I'm sure you are aware ... there is a strong feeling on this > list that > no > > Java pre-requisite ought exist, so Gump can be run in a 'clean' > environment > > w/o worrying about CLASSPATHs and such. > > But didn't seem to register this, which was part of the same paragraph. > > > (Might seem odd for a Java Builder, > > but Gump may do more/other than Java one day). That said, you > seem to have > > cleverly worked around that. So long as Python Gump generates > it, compiles > > it, and runs it -- I can't see folks objecting. > > where (1) I agree it is odd [I was being polite] for a Java Builder not to > want Java, but then explained it and (2) I agree that this worked > around any > objection. Heck, I never even said they were my objections, I was just > trying to summarize what I understood from prior threads/comments on this > list. > > So, for the record (to try to clear up any miscommunication): > > - I agreed from the start that this was a nice to have. I said that > 'ant --debug' might display it, but that I didn't know how to get it > directly without writing Java. (Seems others don't either.) > - I didn't think this list (from comments I've heard supporting > Python Gump) > wanted to have to configure/install/environment a Java compiler, but they > are happy for Python to auto-discover and use one [clearly]. > - I agreed that this solution is consistent with the purist (some > might say > bootstrap) approach, of starting with pure Python. > - All in all, I agreed this was a good solution to the requirement, and > fitting within what I understood as the philosophy. > > That all said, let's please clarify (because it came up again with C, I > believe) and I don't want to be assuming that I understand the > views of this > community: > > - Do folks want a pure Python Gump, that one can download & run directly? > [This solution investigates and locates tools in the environment and uses > what it finds, even bootstrapping with those to build more of it's own > tools.] > > - Or, are folks ok with Gump having other language components, > and requiring > a build prior to being able to run it. Any such build would need to be > automated so we could deploy remote Gump agents. (Clearly this approach is > achievable, traditional Gump did it, and clearly one could use > ant in order > to build Java, and perhaps C, etc.) > > I prefer the Python approach (even if I do get called a purist and not a > pragmatist, this time. ;). That said, I could live with either.
+1. To both of the above sentences. ;-) -- Martin Cooper > > regards, > > Adam > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
