 | | Re: Embedded language support in LPub
|
|
(...) That fits you to a T. LOL! ;-) -Tim (21 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Embedded language support in LPub
|
|
(...) rofl. I know a few people like that. (...) That sounds like an opinion to me. And it fits my credo: "Never take what's offered. If given the choice between A or B, demand C". Steve (21 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Embedded language support in LPub
|
|
(...) Agreed. It does seem a bit silly to spend all this time discussing languages and protocols when we don't even know what LPUB features will be accessed by said languages and protocols. (...) I'm not sure how you can have those doubts when we (...) (21 years ago, 9-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Embedded language support in LPub
|
|
(...) Don: No matter what stategy is taken, there needs to be a documentation effort to describe what features of LPub are going to be provided for extensibility. This is true irrespective of whether a particular scripting language is selected (e.g. (...) (21 years ago, 9-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Embedded language support in LPub
|
|
(...) Yeah, but don't define yet another new protocol. Go with a simple protocol that already exists like XML-RPC. (URL) don't much simpler than that. Plus if you look at the implementations page you'll see that tcl, perl, java, and just about (...) (21 years ago, 9-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
