From: Jordi - I. - M. <jmi...@or...> - 2001-02-21 10:36:45
|
The audience is listening. Try not to let these not-so-enthusiastic responses get into you. It happens to everybody: posting the results of many hours of work, expecting at least not to be ignored, and then receiving nothing but silence. I believe you're going the right way. Usually people post to disagree because they feel things are moving towards somewhere they don't like and/or is of no interest for their personal usage of the API. When things go right then people is most likely to adopt a confortable attitude. He who remains silent concedes. Raymond Smith wrote: > <emote> pulls out blow torch, flick and ignites a cold blue flame.... > > First off, I can understand your passion, and if you go all the way back to > the very first "lets stop and think about it first, then act" post you will > see that above alpha-next-generation-anything was finish up DynAPI2. > > Secondly, beginning discussions (which you should definitely be involved in) > on the planning stages of the next generation of "this" API is certainly > appropriate at this time. The format that was presented was one of > brushstroke self-appraisal with an eye towards what we would like the next > evolution of this API to be capable of. > > Not one mention of "abandon and run" removing the potential for backward > compatibility. Which I think should be a serious consideration in this > "planning" stage. > > At this stage not a single "anything" has been agreed upon. There have been > lots of discussions related to super-class this, client-side that. I only > interceded to try and frame and consolidated these "loose" discussions into > a more productive format based on mutual collaboration. Hence references to > UML, whiteboards and the need to really think before we type. > > But... > > Based on your most recent rock-throw I personally would like to see this > discussion focus on one thing. > > What we would like to do. > > Personally, I am looking to the Pascal's and Rainwater's for leadership > here. I'm only attempting to contribute my time and energies to help push > the ball along. I've posted 3 times with queries for "input" and received > little in the form of response. > > One thread asked which of 3 distinctly different endpoint objectives we have > for this API. Attached: > > (1) A set of surface enhancing widgets for general layman use. Menu, > windows, navigation devices. > (2) A series of linkable components (server and/or client) that can manage > and present information dynamically within the library of server-side > widgets(1). > (3) Both. An API that allows the generalist to enhance their site using the > API that also has hooks developed into it that allows a more serious > implementation embracing the whole information interchange circuit; client > to server-side. As Robert has pointed out these "hooks" could be developed > to allow the user language implementation flexibility. > > Answer this question will go along way to adding a lot of clarity as to what > next-steps in this Open Source Forum, based on and proposing to extend > DynAPI2. > > To be honest I was a little disillusioned with the overall response to what > I was proposing. And I'm certainly not interested in expending a large > amount of my time for nothing. > > So,... > > Lets decide. I think your negative whiplash reaction was a little > premature, but knowing the passions of Pascal I understand it. > > <emotes> flips blow torch in the air and extends the hand towards the rest > of you all. > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev |