Re: A false dawn?

[Michael Q. <mi...@go...>]

On 25 Aug 1999, Peter Bortas wrote:

> Istvan Marko <mi...@im...> writes:
> 
> > Dr J Pelan <J....@ga...> writes:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Steven Heaney wrote:
> > >  
> > > > The http://www.modules.org/ front page was last modified in the first 
> > > > few days of this year and states that work on Modules has resumed. 
> > > 
> > > I moved to 'cmod' and never looked back (http://www.lysator.liu.se/cmod/)
> > > Not as sophisticated but suits my modest needs and is C source.
> > 
> > I just took a quick look at cmod. I like the simplicity, but it's
> > module syntax is way too simplistic for our needs. Using a real
> > programming language (even if it's TCL :-P) for the module
> > descriptions is very helpful, sometimes even required. But our
> > environment is quite complex (~90 modules, each with several versions,
> > many dependencies, 5 supported platforms), I can see that cmod would
> > do fine for smaller sites.
> 
> ceder (the programmer) has expressed interest in extending cmod if
> people tell him what they are using and what they need.

A basic mechanism for dealing with module dependencies would be helpful. I
don't need programmatic control in my modules, but the ability to at least
specify dependencies (if not load dependant modules) would be wonderful.

I really like cmod--it works flawlessly on the platforms I'm using
(Solaris and Linux). 

 ---- 
 Michael F. Quigley, Jr.
 Chief Technology Officer
 Going Virtual, L.L.C.
 Matthews, NC