RE: [Owasp-input-api-developers] language choice, design doc

[Christopher T. <ch...@ch...>]

> I spoke with Gabe this afternoon and it was agreed that we're going to
> use Java as one of the 2 inital development languages.

+1

> Our thinking is that it'll be much easier for us to
> be conscious of cross-language development problems if we force
> ourselves to develop for at least 2 very different languages right off
> the bat.

Makes sense to me, so long as everyone goes into this understanding that one
of our goals is to be flexible and try to work out these issues.  I think
our discussion about the testing tool/framework is a good example of how we
all have different biases, *which is a Good Thing*, but to succeed, we all
need to understand that the Perl folks have it right in that "There is more
than one way to do it."  :-)

> Current thinking is that we might use one of the following:
>
> 	* PHP
> 	* Python
> 	* Perl
> 	* C

I would argue for Perl.  It's popular, very different from Java, and we have
Perl developers on this list.

> As a final note, expect something vaguely resembling a "design document"
> from me by sometime tomorrow afternoon. At the very minimum it will
> outline our design philosophy (probably stolen from the vision doc), as
> well as technical specifics of how things will be built. Perhaps some
> sample usage semantics will be presented. Once I post it, we'll kick it
> around a bit before we start coding, but that shouldn't take more than a
> couple of days (end of week?).

Sounds good to me.  Q:  Given that the vision doc is high-level, will the
"design doc" be, in essence, a requirements doc?  WE've already have several
conversations relating to requirements; perhaps we could start by pulling
all those comments together for discussion?

Chris