Re: [naviserver-devel] Current Status

[Zoran V. <zv...@ar...>]

Am 10.04.2005 um 03:05 schrieb Vlad Seryakov:

> Do we have any plans to release Naviserver?
>
> IMHO, we still need to resolve nscache, virtual and protocol RFEs but 
> even without them Naviserver is very and looks much better than AS 
> already.
> Not that i am competing but i am switching to NS whenever possible 
> already and what can be better proof than that :-))
>
> I am glad that i am on that project with you guys.

Hey, not that fast. I do not think it is necessary to hurry at this 
moment.
I would really consider having (whatever) multiprotocol support, nscache
and (perhaps) ttrace accepted and loaded. We are still using the AS for 
the
product that we ship and I have yet to verify that all is working fine 
with
the NS as well.

The other issue is the documentation. I'm in contact with Andreas 
Kupries
from the Tcl project who wrote doctools. I would like to make him do 
some
changes to doctools so we can get a nice-looking man-pages as Tcl 
project
has. If you look at, for example, "man Tcl_GetStringResult" this is the
output I'm heading at.
Doctools are very good for documenting Tcl code. There is nothing to be
done extra there. The entire tcllib is documented with doctools. There 
is
however a problem when you like to document C-level code this way. You 
can
do it on per-call basis, so each C-function receives a special manpage, 
but
I'd like to have this improved and be able to document many calls 
withing
one manpage as usually done elsewhere. At this point, doctools still 
would
need some changes.
After this question (doctools yes/no and if not, then what) is resolved 
I
could start collecting what's outthere in respect to the documentation.
I see this as a very important step since we've been doing functional 
additions
on a weekly basis. It will slip out of the control and we will not know 
what
is already in the code after some time. Therefore I consider having 
(anykind of)
docs very important.

Zoran