I seem to be having trouble conveying my INITIAL thoughts for ThinletNG's direction within the Thinlet forum. Could I request that those here review the document submitted at the sourceforge website so we can come to a thinletng group consensus as to where it should be going?
The salient points being the intention that this is a 'programme' forming a managed development home (currently sourceforge/thor hosted) and a packaging 'base' (com.thinletng.**) for delivery of multiple implementations (each licensed as appropriate!), under a structured set of interfaces.
The early implementation would be an LGPL 'basic' implementation based on Robert's code (which I'm looking at currently).
Following implementations can target whatever deployment need members within the community feel necessary. Thor already seems interested in a much more advanced, cleanroom implementation possibly more SE orientated.
There would then, conceivably, be other memebers interested in taking contributions towards a more 'meadvanced' ME targeted cleanroom ASF2 implementation. I myself am more ME oriented than SE so will be 'championing' such an implementation once basic is out of the way.
Licensing seems a primary concern - am I wrong in considering that licensing is a function of implementation rather than programme? I.e. it is the delivered JAR (of which thinletng would deliver several) that is licensed based on it's content - not the development programme itself?
However, as stated, please review the sourceforge architecture proposal and comment. I would like us to have some form of statement of the above that we're all happy with that we can present to Thinlet as 'what we're about' for discussion there - but would rather talk about 'who WE are here first :)
Thor - would be nice to resolve these issues through interactive chat - have you had a chance to look at PHPOpenChat at all?
|
