| 1 |
Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Steve Long kirjoitti: |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
>> I don't see how it would wreak more havoc than a novice using, eg ANT |
| 6 |
>> from Java which s/he is comfortable with, and then further having to |
| 7 |
>> learn BASH peculiarities when things don't fit with the eclass. But yeah, |
| 8 |
>> the fun is what attracts me to the idea more than anything. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Java needs to be compiled and ant is meant to be started from the |
| 12 |
> command line. Of course you can invoke the main method from Java but |
| 13 |
> what's the point? Developers have to be able to review ebuilds and |
| 14 |
> having all those different languages would make the job harder and I |
| 15 |
> don't really see benefits. If you need something bit more complex done |
| 16 |
> in an ebuild, you can always use something like inline python. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
Yeah, sorry I haven't used Java seriously since 1.1 (apart from some MIDP |
| 19 |
stuff) so haven't used ANT. I'm thinking more in terms of how Java was |
| 20 |
touted as network code, similar to tcl (which is one scripted setup I would |
| 21 |
be interested in.) So where you have a VM already instantiated, along with |
| 22 |
whatever SecurityManager and so on, you have a framework for user, shared |
| 23 |
or system installs, according to privilege level, with dependency |
| 24 |
resolution handled by the package manager. (The dependencies don't have to |
| 25 |
be confined to what the language knows about.) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
You're right though, that's not of so much interest for stuff where you |
| 28 |
already have ebuilds with associated shell infra, which you're used to |
| 29 |
maintaining. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Thanks, |
| 32 |
igli. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives