Subject:
|
Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:09:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2005 times
|
| |
|
|
Dan Boger wrote:
> 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.
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 that Application
authors could be free to add/implement whatever they can think of
in this namespace branch, without using up names that the
community might want to use for something else later on.
This would eliniate the suffering, I would think.
Once a new command was announced, it could be discussed by the
community (or even by a standards board if one existed) and
possibly promoted (maybe with changes) to be a top-level meta
command that is officially recognized.
>
> > 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.
I'm not sure that alot of this couldn't just be done through
discussion right here, possibly with some formal voting mechanism
on ldraw.org.
If a true committee were really needed though, I would think that
both application and part authors should be included.
From another one of your (and Orio's) messages:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 06:03:52PM +0000, Orion Pobursky wrote:
>
> > > You're suggesting the community suffer.
>
> >
> > 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 over the yea or nay part, but only after community
> > discussion.
>
>
> the more I think about it, the less sense it makes to me. The
> community (or the "board") could suggest names, and keep track of what's
> out there - but a "yea or nay" power seems excessive. How, exactly, do
> you propose you enforce this "nay"?
If this wide open free-for-all branch of the namespace was
available to developrs, I'm not sure much 'enforcement' needs
to be done. I would think that the honor system would work fine
for the most part, once word got out that all the new commands
should at least start out in that development area.
> I think a list of meta-commands does make sence, so people won't
> inadvertently step over each other toes. But "regulating" the
> meta-commands seems like over kill to me.
Regulating it does seem like it might stifle innovation.
That's the main reason I think that a development 'sandbox'
namespace might be the best comprimise.
-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 has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
