--- Ashish Ranjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> that is the most convincing argument till now. :-)
+1 from an Ant PMC member. That logic is irrefutable.
:)
-Matt
> bye :-)
> Ashish Ranjan
> India
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On 11/23/05, Graeme Johnson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on
> 11/21/2005 07:17:16 AM:
> >
> > > Andrey Chernyshev wrote:
> > > > On 11/15/05, Tim Ellison
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>In the end we decided to go with a
> 'conventional' native code tool set
> > > >>for the native source, and 'conventional' Java
> code tools for the Java
> > > >>source. People just felt more comfortable
> with that.
> > > >>
> > > >>Do you think we are missing out on something
> ;-) ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, I can see a few potential issues with
> such "mixed" approach:
> > > > - In order to contribute, people would have to
> learn both building
> > > > technologies - Ant and make, someone may give
> up.
> > >
> > > I don't see a great advantage to asking people
> to learn 'cpptask' rather
> > > than 'make'. I would suggest that many more C
> programmers are familiar
> > > with 'make' already, so we are not asking them
> to learn something new.
> > >
> > > [snip]
> >
> > 'make' also simplifies the bootstrapping issue.
> When you are doing the
> > initial port of the VM to a new platform, and you
> don't have java
> > running yet, having your build instructions
> encoded in Ant is problematic.
> >
> > Relying on the availability of a previous java
> port to get the Harmony
> > VM building seems like a questionable porting
> story. 'make' of one flavor
> >
> > or another is pretty much universally available,
> and seems like the
> > pragmatic choice for building C code.
> >
> > Graeme Johnson
> > J9 VM Team, IBM Canada.
> >
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
