<Off Topic warning>
Sam, I hear you. I understand where you're coming from. I can also see that there are diverging ideas on project descriptors which have been solved in two ways: 1) Augment with namespace definitions, and 2) Generate from different document. The bottom line is that as long as they both work, who cares how the end result is achieved. I'd imagine most people who've written code generators have never written a java compiler. I'd hope from these exchanges it's clear that we're simply not ignoring the work. We're working with Gump. If it turns out one descriptor is a simple transformation of the other, then it'll be easy to adopt Gumps descriptor, if not, we can propose the changes back to Gump/Alexandria. It may be that Gump and Maven don't have the same need for the project information, since they do different things with a 'project', e.g. look @ Ant's 'project descriptor'. At the moment, we've not gone the extend with namespaces way, but it really shouldn't matter. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Work: http://www.multitask.com.au Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> com> cc: Subject: Re: You guys are so funny. 05/03/02 12:42 PM Please respond to "Jakarta General List" dIon Gillard wrote: > > I don't see how we can be more accomodating other than downloading, > installing and running our own Gump. From talking to Vincent on that, it's > not a simple process, hence we are relying on the Gump developers to tell > us where we're going wrong. Look at it from my perspective for a moment. I took initiative. I build a working system. I provided some documentation. I've responded when people have asked for features like the ability to control their own descriptors. I've asked for feedback. I've quickly given commit access to anybody who even expresses the slightest interest and has even some minimal competency. What feedback do I get? > We've chosen to generate a descriptor rather than use namespaces, but other > than that, I can't tell why you're complaining - throw us a bone.... Imagine somebody writing a code generator, never having installed a compiler. Let's be clear - I am not asking anybody sully their hands by actually running Gump, but there must have been a reason why a different DTD was chosen than Gump's. I made an effort to document the Gump data definitions and there certainly is plenty of instance data to look at. Tell me what to change, tell me what's wrong, or simply tell me they suck. All I ask is that you don't continue to ignore this work. Let me be clear: I don't give a rat's behind whether the project definitions are processed using XSLT, DVSL, or C#. But is it too much to ask that somebody showing at least some token interest in converging on the data definitions? - Sam Ruby -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>