Re: Mouse

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

On 2010-06-28, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The RAT repository might certainly a place to go.

> I don't know if I have the appropriate commit bits.  Should I just try
> and see what happens?   (In other words, should I take your comment as
> permission to start committing there?)  :)

That wouldn't work, your karma won't be sufficient.  If you have an
intial code base it may be best to attach it to a JIRA issue and have
one of the people with commit access get it in - I'm sure we'll get the
rest resolved from there 8-)

>> But, beg your pardon, what's so "heavy-weight" with RAT? I can't see
>> any advantages of a Python implementation, other than it would be
>> preferrable to Python developers.

> In our discussion, Robert and I observed that improving and extending
> RAT as it is today can be quite a chore.  He explained the origins of
> RAT as "and experiment in software architecture" and that it had
> horribly gone wrong.

I must admit I never looked any deeper into RAT's core than I needed.
Overarchitected might be true.  But looking at it from the POV of
somebody who extended RAT for the Ant integration, all it took are two
Java classes and about 300 lines of code, most of which are glue code
for Ant and not RAT.  Doesn't sound too bad to a Java developer. ;-)

Currently I don't think people are not improving/extending RAT because
it was overengineered but because nobody has an itch bad enough that it
would need scratching.

> mouse is an attempt to greatly reduce the amount of code needed to
> accomplish that mission, and be much easier to extend down the road.

Let's see it.

I'm still not sure what type of extension you are talking about in the
first place.

Stefan

Re: Mouse

["Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>]

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2010-06-28, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The RAT repository might certainly a place to go.
>
>> I don't know if I have the appropriate commit bits.  Should I just try
>> and see what happens?   (In other words, should I take your comment as
>> permission to start committing there?)  :)
>
> That wouldn't work, your karma won't be sufficient.  If you have an
> intial code base it may be best to attach it to a JIRA issue and have
> one of the people with commit access get it in - I'm sure we'll get the
> rest resolved from there 8-)
>
>>> But, beg your pardon, what's so "heavy-weight" with RAT? I can't see
>>> any advantages of a Python implementation, other than it would be
>>> preferrable to Python developers.
>
>> In our discussion, Robert and I observed that improving and extending
>> RAT as it is today can be quite a chore.  He explained the origins of
>> RAT as "and experiment in software architecture" and that it had
>> horribly gone wrong.
>
> I must admit I never looked any deeper into RAT's core than I needed.
> Overarchitected might be true.  But looking at it from the POV of
> somebody who extended RAT for the Ant integration, all it took are two
> Java classes and about 300 lines of code, most of which are glue code
> for Ant and not RAT.  Doesn't sound too bad to a Java developer. ;-)
>
> Currently I don't think people are not improving/extending RAT because
> it was overengineered but because nobody has an itch bad enough that it
> would need scratching.
>
>> mouse is an attempt to greatly reduce the amount of code needed to
>> accomplish that mission, and be much easier to extend down the road.
>
> Let's see it.
>
> I'm still not sure what type of extension you are talking about in the
> first place.

I've put a rough-not-yet-functioning codebase up in labs:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/labs/mouse/

The architecture is there, but the functionality isn't.  I'm going to
improve it over the next couple of weeks.

-Hyrum