Re: [Tcllib-devel] Tcllib - Reopened discussion on what packages toput into it.

[Andreas K. <and...@ac...>]

[12:33]	<RockShox>	aku: i withdraw my suggestion re tcllib
[12:33]	aku	Too much hassle ?
[12:33]	<RockShox>	i was thinking about it in the wrong manner
[12:34]	aku	?
[12:34]	<RockShox>	i was looking to tcllib for a distribution mechanism. but
i think it would be better to build a central repository to hold all
packages, than try and fit everything into one "library"
[12:34]	aku	Ah.
[12:35]	<RockShox>	tcllib should be a small core of very general utilities
with no dependencies
[12:35]	<RockShox>	i dont even like depending on other things in tcllib
[12:35]	<RockShox>	maybe we need a more clearly defined goal for tcllib
[12:35]	aku	I see. That I have no problem with. somewhere we have to start
standing on the shoulders of others.
[12:36]	aku	goal - if it had one I have forgotten
[12:36]	<RockShox>	more clearly defined than nothing
[12:37]	Gerry	If I have seen less far than others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders
[12:38]	aku	re withdrawal - Are you planning to send this info to
tcllib-devel as well ? If no, please reconsider, i.e. keep the others in the
loop too.
[12:39]	<RockShox>	well hey just because i withdraw my support doesnt mean
the discussion is over
[12:39]	<RockShox>	i cant just close it like that
[12:39]	kbk	Aaron - I don't mind tcllib modules depending on each other;
they all come from the same place.
[12:39]	<RockShox>	well some people dont want to install the entire thing
[12:39]	patthoyts	its good to keep the dependencies to a minimum though
[12:40]	<RockShox>	they want to grab a module that does what they need
[12:40]	<RockShox>	and be done
[12:40]	kbk	And I don't mind *conditional* dependency on things outside
tcllib - "if you have package foo, we'll use it; if not, we'll still try to
work without it"
[12:40]	patthoyts	basically the way its used is everyone plucks what they
need from it as individual modules.
[12:40]	<RockShox>	in fact having a good repositor would probably obviate
the need for tcllib entireley
[12:40]	<RockShox>	its basically just a distribution method
[12:40]	kbk	I *do* concede that cross-package dependencies mean that tcllib
could use better dependency management.
[12:41]	patthoyts	thats how it is now. ButI could see milage in having
support for say protocols requiring udp for instance
[12:44]	<RockShox>	response to my last comment?
[12:45]	dkf_	tcllib's not just distribution
[12:45]	dkf_	it's also a repository and bug tracking
[12:45]	aku	tcllib is mainly a distribution method, but not totally. It
started out as a way to collect smaller stuff witohut having to set up many
websites.
[12:45]	dkf_	having to do loads of teeny weeny SF projects would suck
[12:45]	<RockShox>	if you built a bigger better repository
[12:46]	aku	to amortize the overhead of that among them
[12:46]	<RockShox>	i hate to say it but other scripting languages dont have
a standard library beyond what is distributed with the core
[12:46]	aku	Now it is becoming big enough to be seen as becoming to large
...
[12:47]	dkf_	some things might have been better as separate CVS modules or
even separate projects
[12:47]	dkf_	most of those are yours, aku
[12:47]	aku	:P
[12:48]	kbk	Hmmm, I'd say that most Perl users don't distinguish between the
Perl core and CPAN.  But I don't know if CPAN would count as a "standard
library"
[12:48]	aku	Twas easier to plunk them into the Tcllib infrastructure ...
[12:48]	<RockShox>	maybe a subset should be picked for a standard batteries
included core distro (not AS) and the rest disbanded and put on some other
repository
[12:48]	suchenwi	Teapot.
[12:48]	dkf_	kbk: more of a central lending library?
[12:48]	<RockShox>	NOT teapot
[12:49]	suchenwi	Why NOT?
[12:50]	kbk	Lending library?  More like the mix of rubbish and treasures
stored helter-skelter in Aunt Millie's attic.
[12:50]	<RockShox>	its not open source and it depends on the AS build
processes and it only has what they want to put in it
[12:50]	<Damonc>	suchenwi:  it's proprietary.
[12:50]	suchenwi	Indeed.

--
	Andreas Kupries <and...@Ac...>
	Developer @ http://www.ActiveState.com
	Tel: +1 778-786-1122


> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcl...@li...
> [mailto:tcl...@li...]On Behalf Of Andreas
> Kupries
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 11:36 AM
> To: Michael Schlenker; Donald G Porter
> Cc: Tcllib Devel
> Subject: Re: [Tcllib-devel] Tcllib - Reopened discussion on what
> packages toput into it.
>
>
>
> > > The question is a bit on the abstract side.  For sake of
> > > concreteness, what is the short list of packages currently
> > > being excluded from tcllib that would be allowed into tcllib
> > > with the policy change?
> > Most XML based stuff. (jabberlib, xmlrpc, and others).
>
> So dependency there is either TclXML/DOM/XSLT or tDOM ?
>
> Which of these have their own websites already, maybe even SF projects ?
>
> --
> 	Andreas Kupries <and...@Ac...>
> 	Developer @ http://www.ActiveState.com
> 	Tel: +1 778-786-1122
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Tcllib-devel mailing list
> Tcl...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tcllib-devel