Re: SourceForge GWindows project

Re: SourceForge GWindows project

[Stephen Leake]

I'm copying an email exchange between me and David Botton to
comp.lang.ada, because it involves significant issues for the
SourceForge GWindows project.

Unfortunately, it re-opens a discussion I thought was closed.

I apologize for not putting this on the list in the first place.

The original email from me to David is:

On Oct 16, 2004, at 8:48 AM, Stephen Leake wrote:

>> David,
>>
>> I started the SourceForge registration process, and it's more involved
>> than Savannah was. The application is reviewed by an actual human,
>> during normal business hours. So I think we need to have a good
>> project description.
>>
>> Since GWindows is taken as a SourceForge project name, we can use
>> GNAVI.
>>
>> From the GNAVI page:
>>
>>     The GNU Ada Visual Interface for Windows
>>
>> The license is GMGPL. But that's not on OSI's official list of
>> licenses. The GNADE project is using GMGPL, but is listed on
>> SourceForge as using GPL, so I don't think this will be an issue.
>>
>> For a description, how about:
>>
>>     GNAVI provides a programming framework for applications written in
>>     Ada for the Windows platform. It includes a thick binding to the
>>     Win32 API, a tool to generate bindings for COM objects, and a
>>     rapid application developement environment. GNAVI is intended to
>>     be a direct competitor to Visual Basic, Delphi, and similar tools.
>>
>> Should we start a fresh CVS tree, with the current releases of
>> GWindows and GNATCOM, or do you want to import your current CVS tree?
>> If we start fresh, we can rearrange directories, if you want to. I
>> have no problem with the current directory tree, except I'd add a
>> separate build directory. But we can do that later, after discussing
>> with the rest of the developers.
>>
>> later,
>>
>> -- 
>> -- Stephe

David Botton <david@botton.com> writes:

> I think we should start with a fresh tree with the next release I will
> be putting out this week.

I think it would be better to start with what people are currently
using. Then you can merge in your latest changes, and others can
merge in their changes.

Or import your current CVS repository, so the current release is still
available as a tag point.

> You should get on the GNAVI mail list (gnavi-list@gnavi.org) also as
> there has been much discussion as of late. 

It would make more sense for everyone to join the new SourceForge
list. The current GNAVI list should be discontinued. Remember, the
whole point of moving to SourceForge is to use better-maintained
servers for this project. As I understand it, your GNAVI list was down
for several months.

If the GNAVI list is archived somewhere, I can read the logs. Please
send me the URL for that; I don't see it on www.gnavi.org. 

If it's not archived, that's another reason for moving to SourceForge;
those lists are archived and browse-able.

> Before putting up the project we should get every one involved from
> there as well. 

Why "before"? We've been discussing this for weeks now on
comp.lang.ada, which was the only functioning forum at the time.

I suggest we create the SourceForge GNAVI project with the currently
released GWindows code, ask everyone interested to join that list, and
then start any discussions.

> We should also make sure to leave place for the GNAVI IDE as we are
> working towards organizing the project soon.

No problem.

> http://www.gnavi.org is set up as well. I'll send you a user name
> and password to update the site. 

I have no interest in helping to maintain that site; I'm only willing
to be a sysadmin and developer for SourceForge/GNAVI.

> I haven't played with SourceForge, but I assume we should be able to
> set up our "home" page as any domain we want.

I'm not sure what choices are possible for the SourceForge domain
names. GNADE uses "gnade.sourceforge.net"; maxima uses
"maxima.sourceforge.net".

Hmm. If you are saying that the web page hosted on the SourceForge
servers for SourceForge/GNAVI should be called "www.gnavi.org", ok; we
can do that if SourceForge supports it. But in that case, whatever
files you have currently under that domain should be moved to the
SourceForge server, where other developers in the GNAVI project will
have more reliable access to them.

> Also we may want to change: 
> 
>      The GNU Ada Visual Interface for Windows
>
> to
> 
>      GNAVI: The GNU Ada Visual Interface
> 
> The reason is that I already have the start of a port of GWindows to
> Mac OS X and plan on two more ports one to GTK and the other to  .NET
> Windows.Forms (the Mono project is porting Windows.Forms to Linux and
> OS X as well).

This is a total change in direction. The discussion on comp.lang.ada
made it clear that a "pure Windows" tool was desireable.

> The focus with out question though of GNAVI for now is though Win32.

We can't "focus for now" with a plan of "totally changing focus
later". A cross-platform design is _significantly_ different from a
single-platform design, from the ground up.

> So we should likely discuss this on the GNAVI list. 

By "GNAVI list", I hope you mean "the SourceForge/GNAVI" list. Until
the SourceForge list is set up, discussions should be on
comp.lang.ada, since that is where this issue (of setting up a home
for Gwindows) started.

> It may be the confuses is to focus on Win32 alone for GNAVI and the
> ports I am doing can be come some alternative path.

If you truly intend GNAVI to be cross-platform, we need another name
for the SourceForge GWindows/GNATCOM Win32 only project.

Hmm. "GNAW" has a certain odd appeal (Gnu Ada Windows).

"AWG" could work; Ada / Windows / Gnu. There are other projects on
SourceForge with "awg" in the name (DAWG, Dawgpaw).

"AWE" is even better; "Ada Windows Environment". That's the NY Stock
Exchange symbol for AT&T Wireless, but I don't think that's a problem.

Hey, how about "Visual Ada"? maybe not - people would think we _are_
Microsoft :).

Anyone have a better idea?

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: SourceForge GWindows project

[David Botton]

Ok, I've gone ahead and setup GNAVI: The Ada Visual Interface at 
SourceForge.net - see no objections, in fact I think it has been clear 
I like the idea very much.

I'll post details on the gnavi-list@gnavi.org when SourceForge 
completes setting up the project (hope to see you there soon :-) and 
find out what I need to do to put you on as an additional sysadmin.

I really look forward to working with you, I think that more developers 
and minds will really push gnavi to the goal I and many others have 
envisioned over the last couple of years of an easy to use Delphi like 
RAD environment for Win32.

David Botton

Re: SourceForge GWindows project

[Stephen Leake]

David Botton <david@botton.com> writes:

> On 2004-10-17 09:00:09 -0400, Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@acm.org> said:
> > I suggest we create the SourceForge GNAVI project with the currently
> > released GWindows code,
> 
> No objection per se, but since there are only a few bug fixes in
> GWindows itself doesn't make much sense.
> 
> >  ask everyone interested to join that list, and
> > then start any discussions.
> 
> I think differently. If nothing more than being courteous, we should
> first bring the discussion to the current list first.

This is getting tedious. "the current list" is comp.lang.ada. That's
where this discussion started, since the GNAVI list was down at the
time.

It would help if you would acknowledge that fact.

I also gather that the GNAVI list is _not_ archived anywhere (since
you did not provide the archive URL). That alone makes it an
inappropriate list for this discussion.

> > I have no interest in helping to maintain that site; I'm only
> > willing to be a sysadmin and developer for SourceForge/GNAVI.
> 
> That is ok, I thought though you were looking to take more of a
> leadership role in the project, but any participation is certainly
> welcome.
> 
>
> <refering to making GWindows cross-platform> 
> > This is a total change in direction. The discussion on comp.lang.ada
> > made it clear that a "pure Windows" tool was desireable.
> 
> That is not changing.

Good to hear.

> >> The focus with out question though of GNAVI for now is though
> >>Win32. 
> >We can't "focus for now" with a plan of "totally changing
> >focus later". A cross-platform design is _significantly_ different
> >from a single-platform design, from the ground up.
> 
> Yes and no. The idea of the GWindows ports is not to be completely
> cross-platform. It is possible to use any version of GWindows native
> to that platform in a way that would make it totally non
> cross-platfom, but there is a enough in common to make porting easier.

So you plan on having GWindows-Win32, GWindows-Mac, and
GWindows-Gtkada. Each independent projects, but hopefully maintaining
similar APIs. Like Gnu Emacs and XEmacs.

That leaves open the question of what name we should use for the Win32-only
project at SourcForge, that will host GWindows-Win32.

Hmm. I suppose "GWindows-Win32" would work. But it conflicts badly
with the existing GWindows SourceForge project.

We need to hear from the other GWindows developers;

1) Keep it Win32 only

2) multi-platform is fine

3) Here's a good name ...

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: SourceForge GWindows project

[Stephen Leake]

David Botton <david@botton.com> writes:

> Ok, I've gone ahead and setup GNAVI: The Ada Visual Interface at
> SourceForge.net - see no objections, in fact I think it has been clear
> I like the idea very much.

You are _not_ the only person involved here.

It is _not_ clear that the other GWindows developers "have no
objections" to changing the project from "Windows only" to
"multi-platform".

I was following a process of getting consensus from the interested
GWindows developers/users.

It is disappointing to have you ignore that process and proceed
without consensus.

This action will make it very difficult for me to join this project.

Please not that I am not disappointed that this is not "my project";
that was never my intent. I am disappointed that the project will be
managed by individual decisions, rather than group consensus.

I hope you will be more considerate in the future.

> I'll post details on the gnavi-list@gnavi.org when SourceForge
> completes setting up the project (hope to see you there soon :-) and
> find out what I need to do to put you on as an additional sysadmin.
> 
> I really look forward to working with you, 

Your actions speak otherwise. 

> I think that more developers and minds will really push gnavi to the
> goal I and many others have envisioned over the last couple of years
> of an easy to use Delphi like RAD environment for Win32.

I hope this is true.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: SourceForge GWindows project

[David Botton]

On 1969-12-31 18:59:59 -0500, (null) said:

The GNAVI project has existed since 1999 started with GNATCOM (actually 
it started before that with a framework I called GWin, it was more 
GtkAda like, that got scrapped... there may be a link to it some where 
on AdaPower) and has continued since then. Development has been going 
on continuously by me and others since then.

As mentioned early on in the discussions, I and others have not decided 
to stop developing the GNAVI project because we either need it or enjoy 
doing it regardless of what decision is made for the basis of a "new" 
community based project.

I like the SourceForge idea and after looking more I decided to use it 
for the GNAVI project.

I have always encouraged and been open to participation in the project 
and many have and do participate writing whatever they need or enjoy 
writing, freedom the FSF Open Source way.

If the consensus is to use CLAW as the basis, decide to take part of 
and fork out all of the GNAVI project code, ie. GNATCOM and GWindows to 
date, build another from scratch, or join the existing GNAVI project is 
all cool by me. As long as others are using Ada, writing code, I'm 
happy.

I think my preference is that we all work together on the GNAVI 
project, but as I have said before when I can I would help here and 
there with any project that is born.

<<Your actions speak otherwise. >>
I think that the lines of code (there are a couple :-), time and money 
that I have donated to the entire community along with my sincere 
interest and actions in advocating Ada and encouraging (in fact 
begging) others to become part of - that includes making the decisions 
- projects that I or others have started over the years speak well for 
my self (even if my need to make a living, visit reality, etc. don't 
always speak so well to some).

Well, Perhaps I am overly full of myself (or something else) and like 
yourself get a bit to emotional about a computer language and community 
of people I enjoy working with, but we all have our faults (even if 
ours are good ones :-).

David Botton

Re: SourceForge GWindows project

[stephane richard]

"Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@acm.org> wrote in message >
> We need to hear from the other GWindows developers;
>
> 1) Keep it Win32 only

*** I'd like to atleast start with windows for more than one reason. Yes, 
I'm running windows so i'd like to see it on windows :-).  I also think that 
there's a big windows user base that might be waiting for just that kind of 
binding to exist.  To me, being I'm on windows, other platforms are 
secondary, but with the growth of the linux popularity, I think it's 
starting to become a platform that cannot be neglected.

>
> 2) multi-platform is fine

***  I would consider multi platform fine as far as it's concidered in the 
development effort (as in keep low level access in seperate packages so it's 
easy to switch from one platform to the other) but to me anyways it's not 
really a must per se, definitaly not at the start.


>
> 3) Here's a good name ...
>
For a good name, well if we already know that it will be for windows, 
gtkada, macOS then any name would do.  GWindows is how I know GWindows by 
but indeed it can change.  GUI-Windows as in "The Graphical User Interface 
for _________________ <-- Insert Operating System here.).  GUI - PlaformName 
??

> -- 
> -- Stephe
> 

Re: SourceForge GWindows project

[David Botton]

<<
1) Keep it Win32 only

*** I'd like to atleast start with windows for more than one reason. 
Yes, I'm running windows so i'd like to see it on windows :-).  I also 
think that there's a big windows user base that might be waiting for 
just that kind of binding to exist.  To me, being I'm on windows, other 
platforms are secondary, but with the growth of the linux popularity, I 
think it's starting to become a platform that cannot be neglected.
>>

GWindows for Win32 has already existed for a few years now. See 
http://www.gnavi.org

<<
2) multi-platform is fine

***  I would consider multi platform fine as far as it's concidered in 
the development effort (as in keep low level access in seperate 
packages so it's easy to switch from one platform to the other) but to 
me anyways it's not really a must per se, definitaly not at the start.
>>

GWindows is a Win32 framework at heart. I have began porting that 
"style" of binding and keeping as many interfaces as possible to some 
other APIs now. The original GWindows is not changing.

I think the best comparison is Microsoft's MFC for Macintosh.

<<
3) Here's a good name ...

For a good name, well if we already know that it will be for windows, 
gtkada, macOS then any name would do.  GWindows is how I know GWindows 
by but indeed it can change.  GUI-Windows as in "The Graphical User 
Interface for _________________ <-- Insert Operating System here.).  
GUI - PlaformName ??
>>

I am sort of partial to what I called my project from a few years ago, 
GNAVI and the framework names GWindows and GNATCOM. Part of the reason 
I chose the name was do to the fact that acronym worked and Navi is the 
way to say prophet in Hebrew, sort of a play on the Oracle of Delphi.

I imagine though that if Stephen Leake is planning to fork my code and 
use it in a new project that he would likely change the name from 
GNAVI, GWindows and GNATCOM.

I'd say AdaCOM for GNATCOM, but that was its original name before it 
was supported by ACT and since AdaCOM code may be out there a better 
choice would be something like AdaWin32COM. Perhaps  AdaWin32 for 
GWindows and AdaWin32Builder instead of GNAVI for a  GUI Builder.

While I used a number of GNAT.* packages and some GNAT shortcuts there 
is nothing per se that prevents the packages from being moved over to 
work with most other compilers as well, so the Ada* name is likely a 
good choice.

The best part of the GPL/GMGPL is that it allows for people to advance 
others inventions and technologies freely with their own ideas. As a 
believer in the FSF, not per se the new "Oepn Source" movement, I look 
forward with great pleasure and pride to seeing what new direction my 
code will take and also look forward to merging the best of those new 
developments back in to GNAVI, too.

David Botton