Subject:
|
Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Mar 2003 20:38:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1492 times
|
| |
|
|
Kevin Clague wrote:
> In thinking about this a bit more, I flashed on a quote from Yoda in one of the
> Star Wars movies "Hard to see the future is"....
Ain't that the truth!
> I've added some meta-commands to the name space that are certainly specific to
> LPub and the creation of building instructions. I've also thought about
> namespace pollution. I could see compressing many of these *new* meta-commands
> under a single higher level meta-command, but I'd prefer to use something like
> generic to the task like BI for "Building Instructions", than LPUB, which is a
> specific Building Instruction tool. It seems less ego-centric. You never know
> who might come along and create a better mouse trap.
This is kinda what I was proposing.
If you had known that the APP {appname} branch of the namespace was
open for any developer to use as he saw fit, but that other commands
needed more community buy in, you probably would ahve started off
with 0 APP LPUB commands.
Then the community probably would have said "hmmm. Seems like more
than one program might want to things like that. We should discuss
this some more. How about 0 INST foo X Y Z and 0 INST bar A B C?"
Then after some discussion, and input from many sides a more cohesive
set of commands could be arrived at that are truely designed for use
by multiple Apps. I'm not saying yours aren't (for all I know they
could be reused without modification) but many times things developed
for one app will have sideefects, or limitations that that apps
author never imagained, but which possibly could constrain another
developer.
> I think that using higher level meta-commands that create name spaces for
> higher level concepts is a good idea to restrict over-population (again,
> pollution carries such negative connotations), but I'd like them to be specific
> to a capability goal, rather than specific to an application that provides a
> specific capability.
I aggree. I was trying to propse something where by a developer
could easily add commands and finish his app without needing a
lot of approval, and yet still allow the community to review and
massage the good ideas into a form that fits well with the existing
meta commands.
> If James had put all of the meta-command he defined under the LDRAW
> meta-command I just don't think it would look right to me.
Me niether... but then again isn't that what the 0 is? ;)
He could have used 6 or something else too.
-Kyle
--
_
-------------------------------ooO( )Ooo-------------------------------
Kyle J. McDonald (o o) Systems Support Engineer
Sun Microsystems Inc. |||||
Enterprise Server Products Kyle.McDonald@Sun.COM
1 Network Drive BUR03-4630 \\\// voice: (781) 442-2184
Burlington, MA 01803 (o o) fax: (781) 442-1542
-------------------------------ooO(_)Ooo-------------------------------
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
| In thinking about this a bit more, I flashed on a quote from Yoda in one of the Star Wars movies "Hard to see the future is".... I've added some meta-commands to the name space that are certainly specific to LPub and the creation of building (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
154 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
