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.
These questions are not straightfoward.
At the moment, Gump has a nearly hard dependency on the CVS head version of a Java project which can't be built by gump. And the completely optional dependency on a completely stable and completely free of dependencies "C" program brings up this discussion. As does the adding of some code which will optionally provide version information for java in the case where java happens to be installed.
We each apparently place different weights on different attributes. All other things being equal, yes I would prefer a pure Python solution. When things aren't equal, I would tend to yeild first on the language before yielding on bootstrappability.
- Sam Ruby
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
