CAD Development : 8433


CAD / Development / 8433	8432 \| 8434

Subject:	Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.cad.dev
Date:	Sat, 15 Mar 2003 17:16:33 GMT
Viewed:	1896 times

In lugnet.cad.dev, Orion Pobursky writes: > In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes: > <snip> > > If we want to encourage other programmers to volunteer and write programs > > for the LDraw system, what exists now needs to be clearly documented. > > I think we need to put a lock on the creation of any new commands until we > can properly document the existing commands. This will prevent the overlap > of functionality. I agree. Establishing such a lock means however we need to move rather quickly on a standards body. I know there are others like Steve and Larry who will want to weigh in on this, but they're busy this weekend. I'm traveling up to Steve's next weekend to work on some unrelated stuff with him, but also to talk about further organization of LDraw. I'd dump a lot of thoughts into this right now, but today I have errands to run and I'm also going to visit the NILTC's small layout nearby. I know Steve has some thoughts about how this should and shouldn't happen too. I'll make the point that such a standards body needs to be authoritative, but can't appear too bureaucratic to the average programmer. It should be set up in such a way that encourages programmers to want their meta-commands ratified and officially adopted, rather than discourages the process. The standards body should also be focused and limited in scope to defining and publishing the LDraw file format spec, nothing more. I would consider the parts library and parts tracker a separate project, and the (albeit loose) administration of the website another as well. More on that later when I've had time to organize my thoughts :-) (Lar - anything to add on this one?) -Tim

Message has 3 Replies:

		Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
Quoting Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com>: (...) I disagree. How can you prevent the various programmers from adding new functionality to their software? Why should development on all these tools halt until the non-existent committee figure out what's (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

		Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes: <snip> (...) To some extent the parts library will have to be goverened by the file spec. The most glaring issues for this seem to be Part File naming and BFC complience. -Orion (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

		Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
(...) I don't see how a lock is practical. We don't even have an official standards body yet. I don't know how you would enforce it any way. My goal in making the call was to document what is there, so that people: a) don't produce name space (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes: <snip> (...) I think we need to put a lock on the creation of any new commands until we can properly document the existing commands. This will prevent the overlap of functionality. -Orion (22 years ago, 15-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search