Menu
▾
▴
os2-oorexx-devel — Open Object Rexx for OS/2 Developer Mailing List
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2005 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(4) |
May
(4) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(2) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Steven L. <st...@ea...> - 2006-08-24 17:44:57
|
In <44E...@ti...>, on 08/15/06 at 01:00 AM, Adrian Suri <adr...@ti...> said: Hi Adrian, Did you mean this to go to the list? >Also I was thinking we should word the conditions that if we get more >money than we need, all extra funds will be donated to netlabs I have no objection to asking for donations, but I guess my question would be what would the funds be used for? If the extra funds are to go to Netlabs, why not move the project to Netlabs? Steven -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Steven Levine" <st...@ea...> MR2/ICE 2.67 #10183 Warp/eCS/DIY/14.103a_W4 www.scoug.com irc.fyrelizard.com #scoug (Wed 7pm PST) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
From: Adrian S. <adr...@ti...> - 2006-08-15 00:00:02
|
Hi again seems like my email did not work... anyway I was thinking about setting up the donation, details/questions bellow As well as needing your approval for the donation thing, it will have to be linked to an email address, for paypal, can one set up and use a sf email address for this???? wm...@lu...hat do yuo think??? Also I was thinking we should word the conditions that if we get more money than we need, all extra funds will be donated to netlabs Please let me know what you think Regards Adrian Suri PS I will be on holdifay from thursday for two weeks |
|
From: Michael L. <ml...@lu...> - 2006-05-29 13:52:24
|
On Mon, 29 May 2006 09:56:56 +0100, Adrian Suri wrote: >I remember >some talk about the differences between the Object Rexx and Traditional >Rexx version, any ideas what these were??? I asked Rick about that, I think, and he was unsure as to why the two versions of rexxutil.dll are not interchangable. They have the same list of funcs these days, but the binary sizes are different by quite a bit. Might just be compiler / linker options attributing the size. I hear you about backups. I always have two bootable partitions. Lately on OS/2 that means a Bootable partition ala WPS and everything, and the full OS/2. Boot over to the slim side, delete the swap file, and InfoZip the entire partition as a backup. Recovery is as simple as LVM, format, and unzip. Michael Lueck Lueck Data Systems http://www.lueckdatasystems.com/ |
|
From: Adrian S. <adr...@ti...> - 2006-05-29 08:56:46
|
Hi Thanks, so we basically agree with each other about general direction, by the way I "up graded" to ecs after one of my IDE hard drives died.. loosing all my email now that will teach me for not backing everything up.. it also explains why my previous version of OS/2 went pear shape in Sweden, it was the hard drive dying.....I have a new sata drive now works a treat, and luckally for me most of my saved backups where also on my second IDE hard drive, plus a dvd I burned. I have copied all the windows sub dirs and have started reading the main code ie functions etc.. I will not even look at the Rexx utils package until later, while I have the code for this in the toolkit, I remember some talk about the differences between the Object Rexx and Traditional Rexx version, any ideas what these were??? Must go lots to do Adrian Michael Lueck wrote: > Hi Adrian- > > Yup, 'tis the list addy. > > Yes, Windows back is probably easier. Windows source seems to be reworked OS/2 > source, I've not been in the unix code as much. Going that route would probably > require using those *nix->OS/2 libs which adds another dependency on OS/2... > rather not. > > Yes, best to start with ooRexx 3.1 at this point. > > Watcom, your call. > > Yes, start with rexx.exe ending up on OS/2, but also the RexxAPI ends up being > ported which means cmd.exe can hook it right from the start. Basically rexx.exe > or cmd.exe have about the same code in them, both always hook the dll to crank > up Rexx. I don't see value in undoing that, then to put it back to "normal" > mode. > > Michael Lueck > Lueck Data Systems > http://www.lueckdatasystems.com/ > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk! > Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in > the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=107521&bid=248729&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Os2-oorexx-devel mailing list > Os2...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/os2-oorexx-devel > > |
|
From: Michael L. <ml...@lu...> - 2006-05-29 04:35:33
|
Hi Adrian- Yup, 'tis the list addy. Yes, Windows back is probably easier. Windows source seems to be reworked OS/2 source, I've not been in the unix code as much. Going that route would probably require using those *nix->OS/2 libs which adds another dependency on OS/2... rather not. Yes, best to start with ooRexx 3.1 at this point. Watcom, your call. Yes, start with rexx.exe ending up on OS/2, but also the RexxAPI ends up being ported which means cmd.exe can hook it right from the start. Basically rexx.exe or cmd.exe have about the same code in them, both always hook the dll to crank up Rexx. I don't see value in undoing that, then to put it back to "normal" mode. Michael Lueck Lueck Data Systems http://www.lueckdatasystems.com/ |
|
From: Adrian S. <adr...@ti...> - 2006-05-28 23:23:27
|
see if I can remember the list email plus Since moving I have not managed to get as much help as I was hoping, I have started to work on re-porting oorexx back to rexx, so here are some questions/suggestions 1) We need to decide which direction to port ie unix > os2 or Window > os2, I suggest windows is closer to os/2 than unix? 2) I have the latest version of oorexx via cvs so have this and have incorporated os/2 subdirectories. etc 3) I still think watcom is the best compiler, particularly as it does not have any pre environment requirements etc Well, I think ms2wlink.exe should help convert ms and visual age def files to watcom link (*.lnk files) I was thinking we could use the ide to produce the make files, then adjust these, and simply use wmake.... there are issues in using both watcom's ide and ms2wlink.exe to produce the link file Please get back to me my plans if accepted should go like this 1) produce exe version of oorexx 2) produce a dll version (no wps support) 3) wps support, etc regards Adrian |
|
From: Michael L. <ml...@lu...> - 2006-04-23 11:56:41
|
Forwarding this off-list response back to the list to try to keep everyone in sync. Gee, I even got myself properly subscribed now. Ya think the list owner would automatically get mail... but NNNOOOOO!!! ;-) Michael ================================ HI Michael Nice to here from you, sorry for not keeping in contact but problems, ie seperation, and have now moved back to the UK. By the way also upgraded to EcomStation 1.2R, so I have all the latest drivers etc even got a SATA hard drive to work, now with 1 gig of memory.... and a working copy of RC.exe. Also it looks like watcom 1.5 will also be out soon It will be interesting to see how the stl stuff is coming on Now I have moved I am going to start working on make files etc. Before I moved back to the uk, I was working on export lists under the watcom IDE, but I think I will go along the route of using wmake, so this is what I will look at next Must go but will write again soon Regards Adrian |
|
From: Michael L. <ml...@lu...> - 2006-04-23 11:54:43
|
Hi Eric- Mind taking the time to check your source tree into CVS for the SourceForge project so the rest of us might forge ahead? Sure seems a lot better than starting from zero again. Thanks! Michael Lueck Lueck Data Systems http://www.lueckdatasystems.com/ |
|
From: Eric A. E. <dr...@vn...> - 2006-04-22 16:00:38
|
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 22:04:20 -0400, Michael Lueck wrote: >Greetings developers interested in getting ooRexx on OS/2. > >Adrian, you update your email addy in sf.net? (Thus, you reading this???) > >Eric, progress to a point where you can share code for the rest of us to tinker >with? With your comments of being "half done" with the port... think it is hard >for any of the rest of us to justify digging in to a port of our own. Kind of >like to see what you have, help if we can. > >I have bad feelings about Bob St. John announcing he will not be keeping the >support contact with IBM. I can understand that if IBM is doing nothing for the >money, why pay then. Still, with OS/2 being closed source... "the beginning of >the end of the end?" > >Anyway... 'tis the facts of trying to get ooRexx on OS/2 I suppose... No real good news. My clients, who pay me for programming and design stuff have been keeping me very busy for the last 6+ months, so I've had very little time for my recreational programming. Sigh!. Such is life, but since the paying programming keeps me in food and housing that gets the effort. And since the effort I'm expending for them is not going to slack off for a while, I'm not sure how much work will get done in the future. cheers, Eric Erickson Elvish Software Foundry, Inc. - Internet: dr...@vn... Already where I want to be Today - Voice/Fax: (218)-398-2625 |
|
From: Michael L. <ml...@lu...> - 2006-04-20 02:04:37
|
Greetings developers interested in getting ooRexx on OS/2. Adrian, you update your email addy in sf.net? (Thus, you reading this???) Eric, progress to a point where you can share code for the rest of us to tinker with? With your comments of being "half done" with the port... think it is hard for any of the rest of us to justify digging in to a port of our own. Kind of like to see what you have, help if we can. I have bad feelings about Bob St. John announcing he will not be keeping the support contact with IBM. I can understand that if IBM is doing nothing for the money, why pay then. Still, with OS/2 being closed source... "the beginning of the end of the end?" Anyway... 'tis the facts of trying to get ooRexx on OS/2 I suppose... Michael Lueck Lueck Data Systems http://www.lueckdatasystems.com/ |
|
From: Michael L. <ml...@lu...> - 2005-11-30 13:31:19
|
I finally got around to setting up a developer list for this porting effort. Adrian, let's leave "the great compiler/tools debate" as direct email as Eric is happy with VAC for now. Anyway, greetings all! Michael Lueck Lueck Data Systems http://www.lueckdatasystems.com/ |
