discussion group: Ada use in Internet technologies

discussion group: Ada use in Internet technologies

[Terry Westley]

Responses to my question as to whether there is any interest in a separate
forum for JVM target indicates that there is, but that the topic should
be broadened to include other Internet technologies than just compiling
Ada for the JVM.

Now, I have more questions:

1) Do you prefer to:
   a)  Keep the discussions here in comp.lang.ada so as not to dilute this
newsgroup
   b) Create a separate forum (my choice would be Yahoo Groups)
   c) Create an ACM SIGAda working group with support from ACM
   d) other?

2) What topics do you think are appropriate for this group?

--
Terry Westley
Veridian Engineering
twestley@buffalo.veridian.com

Re: discussion group: Ada use in Internet technologies

[Mark Lundquist]

Terry Westley <twestley@buffalo.veridian.com> wrote in message
news:u6Ge6.2315$FZ1.358088@news.uswest.net...
> Responses to my question as to whether there is any interest in a separate
> forum for JVM target indicates that there is, but that the topic should
> be broadened to include other Internet technologies than just compiling
> Ada for the JVM.
>
> Now, I have more questions:
>
> 1) Do you prefer to:
>    a)  Keep the discussions here in comp.lang.ada so as not to dilute this
> newsgroup
>    b) Create a separate forum (my choice would be Yahoo Groups)
>    c) Create an ACM SIGAda working group with support from ACM
>    d) other?

Well...

C.L.A. is for discussing.
A SIGAda working group is for working.

There will be discussion, so you're going to have (a).  And those kinds of
discussions certainly do belong here on c.l.a.

If there's something to work on, that's (b), but even then it doesn't
obviate (a).

Cheers!
Mark

Re: discussion group: Ada use in Internet technologies

[Pascal Obry]

"Terry Westley" <twestley@buffalo.veridian.com> writes:

> Now, I have more questions:
> 
> 1) Do you prefer to:
>    a)  Keep the discussions here in comp.lang.ada so as not to dilute this
> newsgroup

I would vote for C.L.A because it is a low trafic news group and it will
certainly raise very interesting issue for the Ada community.

Just my 2 cents :)

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--|
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"

Re: discussion group: Ada use in Internet technologies

[DuckE]

I would vote for (a) for now.  If traffic gets to be to high (I doubt it
will, but would be gladd to see it) then consider moving it elsewhere.

SteveD

"Terry Westley" <twestley@buffalo.veridian.com> wrote in message
news:u6Ge6.2315$FZ1.358088@news.uswest.net...
> Responses to my question as to whether there is any interest in a separate
> forum for JVM target indicates that there is, but that the topic should
> be broadened to include other Internet technologies than just compiling
> Ada for the JVM.
>
> Now, I have more questions:
>
> 1) Do you prefer to:
>    a)  Keep the discussions here in comp.lang.ada so as not to dilute this
> newsgroup
>    b) Create a separate forum (my choice would be Yahoo Groups)
>    c) Create an ACM SIGAda working group with support from ACM
>    d) other?
>
> 2) What topics do you think are appropriate for this group?
>
> --
> Terry Westley
> Veridian Engineering
> twestley@buffalo.veridian.com
>
>
>

Re: discussion group: Ada use in Internet technologies

[Marc A. Criley]

Terry Westley wrote:
> 
> 
> 1) Do you prefer to:
>    a)  Keep the discussions here in comp.lang.ada so as not to dilute this
> newsgroup
>    b) Create a separate forum (my choice would be Yahoo Groups)
>    c) Create an ACM SIGAda working group with support from ACM
>    d) other?

While such discussions can occur here in comp.lang.ada, there are
potential participants who have no desire to frequent newsgroups, so you
lose out on their experience and knowledge. Your original message also
noted that you'd gotten little assistance in the past from either
comp.lang.ada or Team Ada, so it seems option a) is already known to be
of questionable value.

Again, I cast my vote for a mailing list forum.  The ASIS (Ada Semantic
Interface Specification) mailing list forum has worked extremely well,
as it both stays highly focused and draws participants who are keenly
interested in that particular topic.

Personally (and this is just me :-), I'm not terribly interested in
joining another "discussion group"-type service--having to learn another
reading/posting interface (no matter how intuitive) and deal with ads,
ads, ads, just annoys me, doubly so if I have to go through a login
process. Plus, participants have to make an explicit effort to go read
the latest messages, versus discussions just showing up in their
In-Box.  (I know some people already deal with e-mail inundation and the
thought of getting even more makes them ill.  But it's the way I prefer
to participate in technical discussions, so it works for me.)

To more widely disseminate information discussed in such an Ada/Internet
forum, archive it and periodically post a pointer to the archive on
comp.lang.ada, Team Ada, etc.

My crotchety 2c,

Marc A. Criley
Senior Staff Engineer
Quadrus Corporation
www.quadruscorp.com

Re: discussion group: Ada use in Internet technologies

[Cesar Rabak]

I feel we could remain in c.l.a.

It would help to increase the awareness of the strenghts/weakness of Ada
in Internet even for people that presently do not have immediate needs
in this realm.

my 2 cents.

Terry Westley wrote:
> 
> Responses to my question as to whether there is any interest in a separate
> forum for JVM target indicates that there is, but that the topic should
> be broadened to include other Internet technologies than just compiling
> Ada for the JVM.
> 
> Now, I have more questions:
> 
> 1) Do you prefer to:
>    a)  Keep the discussions here in comp.lang.ada so as not to dilute this
> newsgroup
>    b) Create a separate forum (my choice would be Yahoo Groups)
>    c) Create an ACM SIGAda working group with support from ACM
>    d) other?
> 
> 2) What topics do you think are appropriate for this group?
> 
> --
> Terry Westley
> Veridian Engineering
> twestley@buffalo.veridian.com

Re: discussion group: Ada use in Internet technologies

[Florian Weimer]

"Terry Westley" <twestley@buffalo.veridian.com> writes:

> Responses to my question as to whether there is any interest in a separate
> forum for JVM target indicates that there is, but that the topic should
> be broadened to include other Internet technologies than just compiling
> Ada for the JVM.

Is compiling Ada for the JVM an Internet technology?  I think not,
a lot Java stuff nowadays is only remotely Internet-related.

> 1) Do you prefer to:
>    a)  Keep the discussions here in comp.lang.ada so as not to dilute this
> newsgroup

Acceptable.  You could use subject tags like '[JVM]' to mark such
discussions.

>    b) Create a separate forum (my choice would be Yahoo Groups)

Not acceptable, eGroups/Yahoo Groups suck because of their banner ads.

>    d) other?

Perhaps you could ask someone to host the list who does not insert
banners at random places?

> 2) What topics do you think are appropriate for this group?

The Ada/Internet group?  Ada implementations of Internet protocols
(mostly application layer, such as SMTP, HTTP, NNTP, DNS), Ada network
interface libraries (e.g. BSD sockets).

Re: discussion group: Ada use in Internet technologies

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <3A7C0439.D8CEAC37@earthlink.net>, "Marc A. Criley" <mcquadex@earthlink.net> writes:

> While such discussions can occur here in comp.lang.ada, there are
> potential participants who have no desire to frequent newsgroups, so you

As there are potential participants who have no desire to be on
another mailing list.

[Ada/GNOME] discussion group

[Hans-Olof Danielsson]

Hi.

Lately it has been a lot of postings on forming an Ada/Internet
discussion group in c.l.a.

But I would also like to see another discussion group: An [Ada/GNOME] group
discussing *GNOME programming with Ada*. Am I alone about that or are there
more finding interest in such a group?

There is a gtkAda discussion group and also an AdaBroker group. They are
interesting for GNOME programming but I also think there is a need to
discuss [Ada/GNOME]-specific questions in a group of its own e.g. on c.l.a.

Your comments?

HOD

Re: [Ada/GNOME] discussion group

[Preben Randhol]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 20:07:18 +0100, Hans-Olof Danielsson wrote:
>Hi.
>
>Lately it has been a lot of postings on forming an Ada/Internet
>discussion group in c.l.a.
>
>But I would also like to see another discussion group: An [Ada/GNOME] group
>discussing *GNOME programming with Ada*. Am I alone about that or are there
>more finding interest in such a group?
>
>There is a gtkAda discussion group and also an AdaBroker group. They are
>interesting for GNOME programming but I also think there is a need to
>discuss [Ada/GNOME]-specific questions in a group of its own e.g. on c.l.a.
>
>Your comments?

I think it sounds very interesting. However at the moment there are not
many bindings to Gnome libs. I believe GtkAda are adding some bindings
to Gnome, but it would perhaps be better with a GnomeAda and keep GtkAda
as pure Gtk+? Then there are other things like XML, DB, applet etc... As
I now see one can make Gnome applets using AdaBroker, it would be very
nice to have a list to discuss how one can do this and get help. 

I would find such a group interesting, but perhaps it is better with a
mailinglist?

-- 
Preben Randhol ------------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ --
                 �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�

Re: [Ada/GNOME] discussion group

[charlet]

> many bindings to Gnome libs. I believe GtkAda are adding some bindings
> to Gnome, but it would perhaps be better with a GnomeAda and keep
GtkAda
> as pure Gtk+?

This is not an issue, since as for opengl and pixbuf support, these
are built as optional and separate libraries and do not introduce any
dependency when not needed/present.

It is definitely the case that next versions of GtkAda will contain
support for much more Gnome widgets without making "pure" GtkAda
dependent on Gnome.

> Then there are other things like XML, DB, applet etc... As
> I now see one can make Gnome applets using AdaBroker, it would be very
> nice to have a list to discuss how one can do this and get help.
>
> I would find such a group interesting, but perhaps it is better with a
> mailinglist?

Sounds like a good idea.
We will put in place a gnomeada mailing list at
http://libre.act-europe.fr within the next few days, and we'll see what
happens from there ;-)

Arno


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Re: [Ada/GNOME] discussion group

[Preben Randhol]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 15:21:59 GMT, charlet@gnat.com wrote:
>
>This is not an issue, since as for opengl and pixbuf support, these
>are built as optional and separate libraries and do not introduce any
>dependency when not needed/present.
>
>It is definitely the case that next versions of GtkAda will contain
>support for much more Gnome widgets without making "pure" GtkAda
>dependent on Gnome.

Ah very nice! :-)

>Sounds like a good idea.
>We will put in place a gnomeada mailing list at
>http://libre.act-europe.fr within the next few days, and we'll see what
>happens from there ;-)

Great! Please post an announcement when it is done.

-- 
Preben Randhol ---------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ --
iMy favorite editor is Emacs!<ESC>bcwVim<ESC>
                                         -- vim best-editor.txt