CAD Development : 8434


CAD / Development / 8434	8433 \| 8435

Subject:	Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.cad.dev
Date:	Sat, 15 Mar 2003 17:44:39 GMT
Viewed:	1860 times

Quoting Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com>: > > 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. 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 out there? I think you shouldn't ask this of people, and that once this board does come into existence, it can then compile the full (current to then) list of what's out there. You're suggesting the community suffer. > 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?) I'm not lar, but I'll add anyway :) I think this standards body should be compirsed of the people who write the programs. I do NOT think it should be a political body, at all. -- Dan Boger dan@peeron.com

Message has 5 Replies:

		Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
(...) No, I'm saying that if anyone is thinking about adding a meta-command they need to, at the very least, post what they plan to add so that the community can comment and ultimatly say yea or nay. Once the committee us up a running thay will take (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

		Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
(...) I agree 100%. -Tim (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

		Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
(...) No, I think the intention is to create an official set of meta-commands, which official software should recognise and/or implement. The important point being that any file containing non-ratified commands will not make it into the official (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

		Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
(...) Well this was one of the reasons behind my original suggestion. (This thread sure did take off while I was away skiing this weekend.) I suggested that a new meta command group be made today, albeit before the creation of a standards body, so (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

		Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
(...) Depends on how open or closed the SB is. I think there's a place for part authors and users as well as developers. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
(...) 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 (...) (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