As I (bit by bit) put Python Gump back together & work out the little issues generated by the re-work, I want to start thinking about next steps. Having xdoc output & pretty forrest sites (btw: thanks for the blue background logo Nicola) isn't meant to be the goal, just a feature. Since Gumpy is more OO, I wish to leverage that to do something seriously useful, above and beyond what could've been done before.
That all said, Gump is an information communicator, so requests for improvements on the presentation (see http://lsd.student.utwente.nl/gump/) are welcomed. [Note: I've added repository lists, XML definitions on the key objects, and started on cross reference information. Also, the RSS feed ought be less verbose now also, using the statistics database to only publish the first time a state changes.] BTW: gump.dotnot.org is down right now, Python Gump wasn't playing nicely w/ the OS. Strangely this doesn't happen on LSD (Py 2.2.1), or Chalko (Py 2.2.2), or others, so I'm hoping it is the instance of the Python install on dotnot (2.2.3) & that an upgrade will help out. Maybe a stab with Python 2.3. BTW: Other side tasks -- (1) update cvs.apache.org to stop pointing to old data (2) work to get gump.apache.org on moof [assuming no Linux box gets offered up] (3) update documentation (4) start nagging [I'll ask here first]. So, I'm thinking next steps, and "distributed gumps" is still the hot favourite. This could been seen a few ways, but I interpret it as cascading gumps to save on cycles. In effect, one Gump would "reach up and borrow" a latest set of outputs (jars) from another. This brings in some interesting issues, like timing and what if the "latest" from another Gump isn't 100% the latest (due to a build failure or ongoing compile), and so forth. It also brings up the idea of "collections of Gump metadata" (distributing that in chunks.) Even though it introduces interesting issues, I feel that this is a way (perhaps better than a GUI) to get Gump out to more places, to get more projects Gumping. The goal being better Gump coverage of OSS, the goal being more successful collaborations & deeper [yet stable] OSS stacks. Not that this is a new topic, but what are folks thoughts on this? Worthwhile? Nuts? Any implementation pointers/thoughts? Thanks in advance. regards, Adam -- Experience Sybase Technology... http://www.try.sybase.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
