You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org> on 2002/10/26 18:15:43 UTC
Re: Forrest uses 'old' version of Ant
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 03:22:49AM +1100, dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> When build dist runs,
>
> "Using Apache Ant version 1.5Beta1 compiled on April 30 2002"
>
> is displayed, even though ant 1.5.1 is installed and operational via
> %ANT_HOME%.
In build.bat:
set OLD_ANT_HOME=%ANT_HOME%
set ANT_HOME=tools\antipede
....
set ANT_HOME=%OLD_ANT_HOME%
> Other than that, the spaces bugs all appear to have been fixed...
Excellent news, thanks.
--Jeff
> --
> dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
> Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
> Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
>
Re: Forrest uses 'old' version of Ant
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Jeff Turner wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 09:55:43AM +0100, Steven Noels wrote:
> ...
>
>>I like the shbat approach - just like I like the ability to install Ant
>>as a separate app instead of just using the jars.
>>
>>We should come up with a lean & mean executable version of Forrest,
>>depending on Ant already being installed. If what remains of Centipede
>>inside Forrest can't support this, we have some cleanup to do.
>>
>>And if we want to provide a live webapp version for local development,
>>and Tomcat isn't lightweight enough to embed inside Forrest, why not use
>>Jetty?
Ahem, maybe I wasn't clear, that's what I said too.
I agree with what you say, just adding the fact that we should remember
that many users, and many more now that also non-java developers will
use it, want to be able to not have to install anything.
You want to see the Apache site all done in Forrest?
Then we better make it easy as just typing build.sh, and it's not my
suggestion, I'm just forwarding.
> That's just what I'd like to investigate (after the maven plugin).
I'm investigating about using an even smaller server, I'll let you know
ASAP.
> Another consideration: if we don't need to copy from src/documentation/*
> to build/tmp/*, then do we really Ant's capabilities at all? I don't
> know.. we'll see.
Ok, keep it in mind, I think too that Ant might not be needed for the
simple distro (ie no bot).
[Nicola Ken - mailing from Germany on a GSM 9.6k connection]
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Forrest uses 'old' version of Ant
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 09:55:43AM +0100, Steven Noels wrote:
...
> I like the shbat approach - just like I like the ability to install Ant
> as a separate app instead of just using the jars.
>
> We should come up with a lean & mean executable version of Forrest,
> depending on Ant already being installed. If what remains of Centipede
> inside Forrest can't support this, we have some cleanup to do.
>
> And if we want to provide a live webapp version for local development,
> and Tomcat isn't lightweight enough to embed inside Forrest, why not use
> Jetty?
That's just what I'd like to investigate (after the maven plugin).
Another consideration: if we don't need to copy from src/documentation/*
to build/tmp/*, then do we really Ant's capabilities at all? I don't
know.. we'll see.
--Jeff
Re: Forrest uses 'old' version of Ant
Posted by di...@multitask.com.au.
I'm +1 on the multiple distributions of Forrest.
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org> wrote on 27/10/2002 07:55:43 PM:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> > I am discussing about using Forrest in a project, and they just said
> > that having to install Forrest is a no-no.
> >
> > They want to have all Forrest checked in with every site, so that the
> > doc writer can get from CVS, and run build.bat/.sh.
>
> > It has been discussed before, I agree it sucks, but it's what our
users
> > need.
>
> Aren't we overgeneralizing here? 'They', 'our users',... or just the few
> opinionated ones that believe their way is the way?
>
> I like the shbat approach - just like I like the ability to install Ant
> as a separate app instead of just using the jars.
>
> We should come up with a lean & mean executable version of Forrest,
> depending on Ant already being installed. If what remains of Centipede
> inside Forrest can't support this, we have some cleanup to do.
>
> And if we want to provide a live webapp version for local development,
> and Tomcat isn't lightweight enough to embed inside Forrest, why not use
> Jetty?
>
> </Steven>
> --
> Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
> Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
> stevenn@outerthought.org stevenn@apache.org
>
> ForwardSourceID:NT00087342
Re: Forrest uses 'old' version of Ant
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> I am discussing about using Forrest in a project, and they just said
> that having to install Forrest is a no-no.
>
> They want to have all Forrest checked in with every site, so that the
> doc writer can get from CVS, and run build.bat/.sh.
> It has been discussed before, I agree it sucks, but it's what our users
> need.
Aren't we overgeneralizing here? 'They', 'our users',... or just the few
opinionated ones that believe their way is the way?
I like the shbat approach - just like I like the ability to install Ant
as a separate app instead of just using the jars.
We should come up with a lean & mean executable version of Forrest,
depending on Ant already being installed. If what remains of Centipede
inside Forrest can't support this, we have some cleanup to do.
And if we want to provide a live webapp version for local development,
and Tomcat isn't lightweight enough to embed inside Forrest, why not use
Jetty?
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
stevenn@outerthought.org stevenn@apache.org
Re: Forrest uses 'old' version of Ant
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Jeff Turner wrote:
[...]
> ;) Yes, as a programmer I agree it sucks, but there are counterarguments
> along the lines of "doc builders aren't developers, so shouldn't be
> expected to have Ant installed".
I am discussing about using Forrest in a project, and they just said
that having to install Forrest is a no-no.
They want to have all Forrest checked in with every site, so that the
doc writer can get from CVS, and run build.bat/.sh.
It has been discussed before, I agree it sucks, but it's what our users
need.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Forrest uses 'old' version of Ant
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 04:17:20AM +1100, dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org> wrote on 27/10/2002 03:48:08 AM:
>
> > On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 03:46:34AM +1100, dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Yep, I know it's in their as I don't have the beta installed, but can
> it
> > > be skipped if Ant 1.5.x is installed?
> >
> > Possibly.. any reason to though?
> 1) I don't need another copy of Ant installed (2 including the cvs
> checkout)
Without multiple copies of Ant, we wouldn't need to buy new hard drives,
and a whole industry would collapse. Those people have families dammit..
shame on you.
> 2) Mine's more up to date
Doesn't need to be to build Forrest ;P
> 3) It's the beta release and the real thing is out
So they say....
> Just those. Nothing pressing.
;) Yes, as a programmer I agree it sucks, but there are counterarguments
along the lines of "doc builders aren't developers, so shouldn't be
expected to have Ant installed".
--Jeff
Re: Forrest uses 'old' version of Ant
Posted by di...@multitask.com.au.
Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org> wrote on 27/10/2002 03:48:08 AM:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 03:46:34AM +1100, dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
[snip]
> > Yep, I know it's in their as I don't have the beta installed, but can
it
> > be skipped if Ant 1.5.x is installed?
>
> Possibly.. any reason to though?
1) I don't need another copy of Ant installed (2 including the cvs
checkout)
2) Mine's more up to date
3) It's the beta release and the real thing is out
Just those. Nothing pressing.
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
Re: Forrest uses 'old' version of Ant
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 03:46:34AM +1100, dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org> wrote on 27/10/2002 03:15:43 AM:
>
> > On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 03:22:49AM +1100, dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> > > When build dist runs,
> > >
> > > "Using Apache Ant version 1.5Beta1 compiled on April 30 2002"
> > >
> > > is displayed, even though ant 1.5.1 is installed and operational via
> > > %ANT_HOME%.
> >
> > In build.bat:
> >
> > set OLD_ANT_HOME=%ANT_HOME%
> > set ANT_HOME=tools\antipede
> > ....
> > set ANT_HOME=%OLD_ANT_HOME%
>
> Yep, I know it's in their as I don't have the beta installed, but can it
> be skipped if Ant 1.5.x is installed?
Possibly.. any reason to though?
--Jeff
> --
> dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
> Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
> Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
>
>
>
Re: Forrest uses 'old' version of Ant
Posted by di...@multitask.com.au.
Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org> wrote on 27/10/2002 03:15:43 AM:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 03:22:49AM +1100, dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> > When build dist runs,
> >
> > "Using Apache Ant version 1.5Beta1 compiled on April 30 2002"
> >
> > is displayed, even though ant 1.5.1 is installed and operational via
> > %ANT_HOME%.
>
> In build.bat:
>
> set OLD_ANT_HOME=%ANT_HOME%
> set ANT_HOME=tools\antipede
> ....
> set ANT_HOME=%OLD_ANT_HOME%
Yep, I know it's in their as I don't have the beta installed, but can it
be skipped if Ant 1.5.x is installed?
> > Other than that, the spaces bugs all appear to have been fixed...
>
> Excellent news, thanks.
Well....see the next emails :(
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers