Re: GWindows and a future home for it

[Chris Humphries <chris@unixfu.net>]

stephane richard wrote:
> "Marius Amado Alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote in message 
> news:mailman.146.1096645193.390.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org...
> 
>>>>>>Database support is essential. If Claw is weaker than GWindows on
>>>>>>database support, that is a major strike against it....
>>>>
>>>>Duh? Was the project not a GUI library? What that has to do with 
>>>>database?
>>>>
>>>>(Could not find the original post by Fionn apud Stephen)
>>>
>>>It was never just a GUI library problem - GWindows supplies both a GUI
>>>library and a databae library, and I need and use both.
>>
>>I also need both food and soap, but I don't keep them together :-)
>>
>>So it seems what you want is a set of facilities for development of a 
>>certain class of applications. Not pressing at all but I'd love to see a 
>>description of it.
>>
>>Otherwise it's like the Common Ada Library idea again.
>>
>>What I liked in the forming GWindows/Claw project was that it seemed to be 
>>about one well defined and manageable area, GUI. Oh well...
>>
> 
> Well whether it's GWindows, CLAW or GWindows And CLAW...it's still a GUI 
> project.  We wouldn't coding databases, at least not creating it, it's 
> already existent. 
> 
> 

Of course, if people had a problem with it, they are free to submit
their own patches :) Which is kind of nice.

I am more a selfish programmer, I don't end up coding anything unless
it is something that I need, which may be something that is additional
to an open source library. Then I will submit a patch. The library not
being 100% of what you want it out of the box, shouldn't stop anyone :)

Basically, if someone really wanted it, they could write it themselves.
One thing about opensource is the freedom to do this and the ability
to submit a patch and have it be included for others (if you wish).
Note I am not attacking anyone, just pointing out that if someone wanted
something, they could write it themselves.

A GUI library should just be for GUI stuff.
A DB library should just be for DB stuff.

It should then be up to the programmer (implementer of libraries) to
create the new api that is specific to their project(s). It is easy
to do, and seems an easier way to manage things.

Even QT requires external libraries for it's database stuff, it just
has a common api for using any database... Which could be easy to write
in Ada.

Not sure why this is such a big deal :)

My opinion is for both projects to be on their own cvs repositories,
and for the direction of the project be decided by those that write
the code :)

my 2 cents,
Chris