Re: Feasibility/Requirements/Wishes of xAL (was: Standard Library Interest?)

["Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net>]

Ching Bon Lam wrote:
> I'd like to talk about something i'm not experienced in:
> 
> 1. Setting up a project.
> 2. Managing a project.
> 
> You need some kind of mission statement. This statement will include goals 
> like "Having a consistent interface througout the whole library".
> 
> You need some sort of infrastructure/platform for communication between 
> people. A good way is a dynamic website, with information about people and 
> such things.
> 
> You need documentation about procedures such as "how to add a component to 
> the library". This procedure would contain stuff like "First write an API, 
> documentation and examples and let it be reviewed. Once that's approved, 
> implement it. etc".
> 
> You need to have development tools that everybody have access to it and say 
> that you are going to use those tools for everything you want to program. 
> For example (not sure if it is a good one), I've the impression that the 
> GNU Make tool is not well supported in a Win32 environment. So we should 
> use a more portable "make" tool.
> 
> You need a periodic cycle for revision/release. A period for new 
> components, a period for checking and cleaning the code etc.
> 
> I'm sure i've missed a lot of other stuff as i've no experience in setting 
> up/managing big projects, as xAL will be IF it's going to be set up.
> 
> I would like to hear your thoughts about it, and if you have, suggestions, 
> additions etc.
> 
> Bon

I don't want to even seem to disagree.  But I think we need to make a 
cut here.  There are two projects now being discussed.  I think BOTH are 
needed--but they are different.  I am trying to maintain a focus on 
getting a decent registry for the stuff that already exists.  Such a 
registry will have a lot of benefit independent of the second project.

For now I'll call Marin's proposed library CAL.  We can decide later 
whether that means Common_Ada_Library or something else.  The important 
value added in CAL will be:

1) Higher standards for software accepted into the library.
and
2) Making it possible and desirable for all Ada compiler vendors to 
distribute the CAL with their compiles.  This doesn't necessarily 
require a copyleft, but it will require a common licensing policy.

Which of the two projects is more important?  Mu.  A better answer is 
probably the one that isn't done, or isn't done right.  In the best of 
all possible worlds, lots of packages will flow from all over into the 
registry, from there the best of breed will eventually move into CAL, 
and then into the Ada standard.

I seem to have nominated Marin to be the initial focal point for the
CAL effort, and volunteered myself to get the registry started.  I'll 
try to work out a strawman registration form and website over the next 
week or so.  Incidently notice that I think it would be nice to have a 
uniform method of looking up child units and even subroutines within a 
library--but that is not part of this job.  If CAL is to work, it will 
need to do that.  But for what I am aiming at, linking to the current 
website, and having a standard format for some basic information is the 
"baby step" I talked about.  The sort of stuff Bon is talking about 
above is part of the next step.


-- 
                                        Robert I. Eachus

"Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the 
goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, 
down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or 
down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair 
of an old motorcycle."  -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle 
Maintenance by Robert Pirsig