At 07:52 23/3/01 -0800, James House wrote:
>There are some very fine lines to walk when trying to build code that is
>re-usable, and also clean and straight forward, and also tries to re-use
>some code itself. For instance, I immediately cringe at thinking the job
>scheduler should be dependent on ANT - I'd like something that is as
>dependent on as few other things as possible... However, if ANT 2 has a
>great task engine, then it would be a shame (waste of time) to reproduce
>another. However, if ANT's task engine isn't built in a way that fits
>naturally with the rest of the Job Scheduler I'd like to have, then why
>shoe-horn it in?
come help me lobby the ant group to get it nice then ;)
>I also agree with the poster on this thread who said that libraries/products
>should not be tied to a framework, but rather the framework should
>incorporate them. I'm positive that if the Job Scheduler is tied to Avalon
>or Turbine or XXXX framework, many people (including myself) will not be
>very happy about using it within a product that already has it's own (and
>very different) framework.
well I do plan to make it AValon/Phoenix centric so ... ;)
>For example, if we wanted to use ANT's task engine it would
>be nice if there was an "ant_tasks.jar" not just an "ant.jar".
I am fairly sure that will be the case. Ant may break up into as many as
15-20 jars in the end I suspect.
>I need to get started on something right away, but would really like it to
>be developed as part of a community, and have the aid others in developing
>it. How soon will ANT 2.0 be complete?
Well there is a task engine that is relatively complete - whether it gets
accepted as ant2 is another thing altogether. However if it does then we
could have the tool up and running within about 20 hours I suspect (minus
security stuff).
However if it isn't accepted then we have a long wait. My proposal for ant2
went through about 3 iterations and overall sucked about 80 hours. Ant2
could take as many again (and considering they would be dispersed over many
weeks ...).
If you are really on a short timespan we could use the proposal as is and
refactor as appropriate when ant2.o matures. (The proposal is in
proposals/myrmidon in jakarta-ant CVS)
>I really would hate to build this
>thing myself, and then watch you (Pete) build your own a few weeks later
>(you seem fairly determined to rebuild yours once ANT 2 is complete).
I been itching to do one since last september however there was an
explosion that halted work on ant2 around december which stymied me
completely. I will eventually do it as it is complimenting work I am doing
with something else ;)
>Where do I go from here? -- I guess I'll study up on ANT, Avalon and
>Turbine, and then write up a proposal. I'll be VERY happy to have the
>project fall somewhere (I'm open to anywhere) under Jakarta, but if there's
>too much bickering I may have to go my own way :(
However it is done I think it woul dbe best to develope the base away from
public and when it is mostly working then present it as a project. This
minimises the risk for Apache (ie they wont get a dud) and the risk for us
(ie we get to implement most of what we want without anyone to vote against
us). Whether its started/prototyped in commons, sourceforge, avalon or
somewhere else is largely unimportant to me - what s important is what
comes next ;)
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
