Re: [LAF-devel] Re: Design

[David M. B. <da...@da...>]

This looks good.  The only concern I've have in the past is with 
licensing of Sleepycat's Berkeley DB, but that was with projects that 
had some closed-source components.  Since I'm hoping we can keep this 
all BSD licensed, this should be OK.

I'm not very familiar with ruby.  What are the advantages for using it 
as an embedded scripting language?  Can you give an example or two of 
how it could be used as such?

Thanks,
David

Wesley J Landaker wrote:

> On Sunday 10 August 2003 2:29 am, David M. Brown wrote:
> 
>>Hey all.  I'm glad someone poked my memory about this project.  I
>>more or less had forgotten about it. :/
> 
> [ . . . ]
> 
>>So, I think it would be helpful to get an idea of who has what
>>skills. This seems like it is already coming out in the emails so
>>far.  It also helps to know who wants to do what.  I don't mind doing
>>project management type stuff.  But in order to do that I need lots
>>of feedback initially on who wants to do what.
> 
> 
> As far as skills and who-wants-to-do-what kinds of things, I can 
> probably help with the overall design, coding, managing CVS (I know how 
> to do just about anything you could ever want with CVS ;), and even 
> reverse-engineering PAF file formats if we need to do that. Basically, 
> I'm most interested in working hard to get a good infrastructure set 
> up, get a solid design, help build a framework, and then see how it 
> goes from there. ;)
> 
> If I were going to pick tools to use on my own, I'd recommend:
>   - C++ for the core
>   - Qt for the GUI (and could be used as well for i.e. Unicode support)
>   - db4 for the database (SQL might be okay too)
>   - ruby as an embedded scripting language (if needed)
> 
> What are others interested in using?
> 
> Also, what license(s) are people thinking of releasing under? 
> Personally, I feel that it makes the most sense to release applications 
> under the GPL, as it guarantees that any changes made to the program 
> will stay as Free Software.
> 
> 
>>One last thing.  I know a couple of people who work for the LDS
>>church software development department, but I'm not sure if they work
>>on PAF or not.  They may be able to get me some information on PAF's
>>native file format, though.  Heh, I once wrote to them a while back
>>about doing this project and getting what help we could from them,
>>and they were absolutely NOT interested.  Maybe things will have
>>changed by now.
> 
> 
> It would sure be nice to get some info from them, but I think it might 
> be tough to get them to cough up much info. I believe PAF (at least the 
> later versions) was outsourced and much of the internals are really 
> proprietary. It's kind of sad, actually... But hey, hopefully I'm wrong 
> and they'll be more willing to give you some info this time around. ;)
>