(I apologize in advance if this seems overly snippy, but I somewhat expected the response given, so I feel I need to vent a little bit.)
I've been using the application (FishEye) for a little over a year now; both at home, and at work. I think some of your points seem less than credible, or at least indicate criteria designed to produce a preselected outcome. To rebut:
1. I've run Fisheye on an ultra 10 without any significant hardware issue. Granted, it uses a moderate amount of memory (as does any java application, or roxen, for that matter), but I don't think that should be a show stopper.
2. There isn't really anything to administer... it runs in its own container, and you simply start/stop it. The repository at work is 90 million lines of code with 100+ committers; I've never had to touch it.
3. I'm not exactly sure why this should be a show stopper before you've even looked at the product. There are plenty of projects using it that you can get a feel for the product. More specifically, what exactly would you think you'd want to change?
4. see point 3.
I guess I don't understand what the reluctance to even evaluating it is. I mean, does it really make sense to be spending time reinventing the wheel, just so that it's written in pike? Certainly the limited resources at hand could be better spent on more worthwhile endeavours. Fisheye certainly has worthwhile features (tarball generation, searching, rss feeds) that I think merit more than the very curt dismissal you've given it.
Bill
On Jul 9, 2006, at 3:05 PM, Peter Bortas @ Pike developers forum wrote:
I've taken another look now and downloaded a copy to take a look at it. It has some drawbacks:
It's all Java and Regexps. We'll need a new modern computer with some horsepower to run this. Not a showstopper per see.
It's running Java Server Pages in it's own webserver. I have nothing but bad experiences with JSP in Tomcat/Apache, but it is concievable that it might work better in their solution as it is all Java. Showstopper if I'm going to administer it.
There is no source. We can't change it unless we decompile it. Showstopper for me.
I won't agree to the NDA. It's not to horrid, but it forbids reverse engineering. See 3. Showstopper for me.
Since I won't agree to the license I can't evaluate it any further.