Re: Ada Component Registry proposal

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

sk wrote:

> This is an important distinction for me which can probably
> only be answered by waiting for RIEachus' full proposal :-)

The problem is one of terminology.  I am developing A registry, and a 
set registry maintenance software and tools that should result in many 
people taking THE registry, and adding their proprietary software 
libraries to it.  No reason they shouldn't, and if they do it by having 
a local registry they merge with each new release of THE registry, the 
whole process should be fairly painless.  If at some point they decide 
to publish some of their local tools, great.

In the context of what I will call the Common Ada Library (CAL) 
proposal, the registry software can be used to maintain a subset which 
is the CAL.  It would almost certainly have much stricter rules for 
inclusion than my version of the registry.  Again, if people want to 
comply with the "extra" rules needed for CAL and sumbit their software 
there, great.  So the goal is that software  components will migrate:

   Local library/registry --> Global registry --> CAL.

That is part of what I mean when I talk about evolution.

-- 
                                             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