Re: [gobo-eiffel-develop] Hello

[Andreas L. <no...@sb...>]

On 25 May 2001 21:03:38 +0200, Eric Bezault wrote:
> Berend de Boer wrote:
> > 
> > A few things:
> > 
> > 1. I think ECLI is also a good candidate (odbc access).
> 
> Yes, and there are probably many others as well.
> But we have to start somewhere ;-)

Right, I have a never ending list of additions for GOBO. But if we can
get UCSTRING ePosix and eXML merged into GOBO in a reasonable time we
will have archived so much. This is land no Eiffelist has touched ever
before (;

> > 3. For the guideline: note that eposix also has several layers like a
> >    Standard C, POSIX, Single Unix Specification and an abstract layer
> >    (common subset of POSIX and  Win32). With single prefixes like PX
> >    or so I don't get that far in communication the structure. Perhaps
> >    you can give this some thoughts.
> 
> Yes, I thought about that two days ago as well. What about
> possibly allowing several prefixes for some libraries. It
> is actually already the case for the Lexical library with
> LX_ and YY_ (for skeleton classes) and for the Parse library
> with PR_ and YY_ (again for skeleton classes). And if we
> integrate the Unicode cluster into the Kernel library we
> would also have KL_ and UC_ for this library. So provided
> that these prefixes are well documented (i.e. have a page
> listing all the libraries with their prefixes used) so that
> we can avoid clashes, I don't think that there is any problem.
> So what about SC_, PX_, SU_, etc. for the different layers?
> Of course you (and any other developer) are free to choose
> the prefixes you want provided that there are not used yet.


Btw, in eXML I now use XM_ as a prefix, but the bridge implementations
use TOE_, EXPAT_, and EIFFEL_. I have not thought about renaming them
yet, because I think of them as non user visible. What is your position
on this Eric?

> > 5. The name: I think the Gobo name is quite usefull as it is
> >    well-known. But what about a somewhat more catchy name like Unified
> >    Gobo? "The Unified Open Source Eiffel Library" is to formal, but
> >    Unified Gobo sounds as somewhat more important for this large
> >    undertaking.
> >    But I'm also just fine with Gobo.
> 
> I would say the shorter the better. For example the full
> name is actually Gobo Eiffel, but everybody just calls it
> Gobo because it's shorter. So I would rather stick to
> Gobo as a name, even if the documentation will clearly
> state that it's a multi-developer multi-library project.

Btw, Eric, where does the name GOBO come from?

Another question, do you use any tools to write the docs?


regards,
Andreas