RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

Wow, see... in my defense I did start my post with a complaint that the spec was vague and continued from there. I'd assumed you were talking about allowing the developer some place to drop a server side script (which made the whole thing seemingly pointless because if you can do that, you can

RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

--- Todd Ellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hate to actually do Microsofts job here, but when/if > longhorn comes out > it will actually have FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER a real > scripting > environment. uhh.. you mean Vista?! Longhorn is so '04. Microsoft figured out that if they keep r

RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

> Well, shame on you for hiding requirements details Well, then equally shame on you for jumping to a solution without asking more questions to better understand what might be appropriate. ;-) > And if you find that your available tools don't fit, > find and learn one that does. That's the re

RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

Hate to actually do Microsofts job here, but when/if longhorn comes out it will actually have FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER a real scripting environment. I think it is currently code named "monad". I saw a demo of it in Redmond. The cool things you could do with it if Office was installed include. w

RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

Well, shame on you for hiding requirements details (Win32, no CygWin), but wget is available on windoze and using it is simple enough that it can be run from a windoze (excuse the usage) "shell" - the venerable batch file. If your developer friend lives/works on windoze and can't lash together a

RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

> Groovy would be a decent solution I suspect, but wouldn't you > need to layer in HttpClient or something like that to get decent HTTP > facilities? Yeah, but in fairness - both ruby and perl need HTTP libraries too. And Commons HTTP Client has a nicely documented API. Oddly, 5 seconds ago on

Re: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

On Sep 29, 2005, at 1:26 PM, Tim Colson (tcolson) wrote: I could write something in perl. EriK, god that he is, can do perl or ruby or probably a dozen other langs, and of couse ant too (hmmm, wonder why he didn't mention that option ;-) Ruby is my (current) hammer, that's why. That being

RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

Hey folks -- Again, I'm really not looking for the concrete solution, more interested in discussion of "why" folks would choose different approaches. More pyschology than computer science ;-) I could write something in perl. EriK, god that he is, can do perl or ruby or probably a dozen other lan

Re: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

I think the issue is that the developer doesn't have remote access to the box; he can only get at the logs through the web. So, scp and rsync are out. wget isn't, of course. :) If it were me... I'd do it in bash using wget. Seems like it would be a one-liner, since you can do it in one line w/ wge

RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

Timo - Consider me puzzled. There is something missing in the spec for this project - what is the developer trying to do, simply get the log files? If so then rsync, wget, or scp from the commandline, or a gui-based scp tool seem much more useful than any sort of programming solution.

Re: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

Tim Colson (tcolson) wrote: Well, I'm not 100% clear on what's wanted, but could what he needs be done using wget? As described, the situation is grabbing 365 log files, stored in /MM/file_MMDD.log directories on an HTTP server. The question here is not to obtain a

RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

Or, if wget doesn't fit the bill, you can also do this using rsync. This might even be better if the copying is to be done routinely and only new files are wanted. Jim *-*---* | Jim Secan | Northwest Research Assoc, Inc | | ([EMAIL PROTECT

RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

At 02:55 PM 9/28/2005 -0700, you wrote: >wget -m URL That's pretty much it. If there are other files in this directory structure that you don't want, there are accept and reject options (-A and -R) that allow you to list by suffix or by pattern those files you want or don't want. Details can be

RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 2:48 PM To: jug-discussion@tucson-jug.org Subject: RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script? Rumor has it that Microsoft has the next killer scripting language they are calling C#Script

RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

- From: Tim Colson (tcolson) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 2:33 PM To: jug-discussion@tucson-jug.org Subject: RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script? > At least I can spell your name correctly :))

RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

> At least I can spell your name correctly :)) Heh heh, well, mine -is- easier to spell of course. Sorry about that. :-) > This beautiful blog entry sums up my take on readability quite a bit: > Hmm... readable means more than perce

RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

At 02:03 PM 9/28/2005 -0700, you wrote: >So I'd be the guy compiling and then using Perl rather than trying to >learn how to get for loops in a shell script to work to grab all the >days in each month competent shell scripters would probably laugh at >me, and I'm okay with that. ;-) I'm by no

Re: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

On Sep 28, 2005, at 4:56 PM, Tim Colson (tcolson) wrote: [Eric would] use Ruby, personally. It'd be much more readable than the equivalent Perl variant, almost for sure. The readability factors into the maintainability too. Let me break that down a bit... Can we assume you, Eric, have

RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

> Well, I'm not 100% clear on what's wanted, but could what he > needs be done using wget? As described, the situation is grabbing 365 log files, stored in /MM/file_MMDD.log directories on an HTTP server. The question here is not to obtain a concrete solution -- but to talk about approa

RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

> [Eric would] use Ruby, personally. It'd be much more readable than the > equivalent Perl variant, almost for sure. The readability factors > into the maintainability too. Let me break that down a bit... Can we assume you, Eric, have the experience to write either a perl or ruby script? S

Re: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

At 01:17 PM 9/28/2005 -0700, you wrote: >I suspect a subject line with the P-word in it will at least hook folks >into reading this... ;-) Well, I'm not 100% clear on what's wanted, but could what he needs be done using wget? Jim *-*---* | Jim Seca

Re: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 1:32 PM To: jug-discussion@tucson-jug.org Subject: Re: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script? On Sep 28, 2005, at 4:17 PM, Tim Colson (tcolson) wrote: So if you were doing this task, how would you ap

RE: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

] -Original Message- From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 1:32 PM To: jug-discussion@tucson-jug.org Subject: Re: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script? On Sep 28, 2005, at 4:17 PM, Tim Colson

Re: [jug-discussion] Why Jython, or Jelly, or Groovy, or Beanshell or ... instead of perl, or sh script?

On Sep 28, 2005, at 4:17 PM, Tim Colson (tcolson) wrote: So if you were doing this task, how would you approach it? What tool would you use? And more importantly, why? I'd use Ruby, personally. It'd be much more readable than the equivalent Perl variant, almost for sure. The readability fa