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

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

[Ching Bon Lam]

I think that there are more than a dozen ppl interested in some standard 
library, which i will call xAL for fun. xAL of course stands for x Ada 
Library, analogous to Ada0X :).

I want to discuss about the requirements of the library, and the wishes 
of the developers that either program the library or use the library for 
his own project.

I'll start with some requirements:

- some system for documentation. Something like python or java        
documentation. The kind that you can browse with your browser. I kinda 
like that.

- a style guide. The style guide provides rules and guidelines how to 
format your code. Result should be consistent formatting and naming in 
the code.

- reviewers. People who review the code that developers want to be 
included in the library. Because we only want quality code, don't we? The 
question here is: what is quality code and what isn't?

- using proven code. Reinventing the wheel is time consuming and it 
allows the bugs to introduce themself.

And some wishes:

- portability. It's nice to run it on many platforms. But please, no 
preprocessing stuff. That's horrible

- CORBA. If all components have a CORBA idl interface, other programming 
languages can use the library too without too much hassle.

- lots of developers. How to lure them?

What do you think of it? What requirements and/or wishes would you like 
to see to be added?

CBL

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

[Martin Dowie]

"Ching Bon Lam" <c.lam_REMOVE_THIS@student.utwente.nl> wrote in message
news:Xns940FC6E7E7DABcblamstudentutwenten@130.89.1.105...
> I think that there are more than a dozen ppl interested in some standard
> library, which i will call xAL for fun. xAL of course stands for x Ada
> Library, analogous to Ada0X :).
>
> I want to discuss about the requirements of the library, and the wishes
> of the developers that either program the library or use the library for
> his own project.
>
> I'll start with some requirements:
>
> - some system for documentation. Something like python or java
> documentation. The kind that you can browse with your browser. I kinda
> like that.

That's easy:

AdaBrowser when you just want the API
http://home.tiscalinet.ch/t_wolf/tw/ada95/adabrowse/

GNATHTML when you want the entire implementation.

> - a style guide. The style guide provides rules and guidelines how to
> format your code. Result should be consistent formatting and naming in
> the code.

Good start @ http://www.adaic.com/docs/95style/html/cover.html

> - CORBA. If all components have a CORBA idl interface, other programming
> languages can use the library too without too much hassle.

Hmmm, I'd put this low on the list...

my $0.02

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

[Stephane Richard]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5667 bytes --]

See my comments distributed appropriately in your message.  preceded by  a
***

-- 
St�phane Richard
"Ada World" Webmaster
http://www.adaworld.com
>
> I'll start with some requirements:
>
> - some system for documentation. Something like python or java
> documentation. The kind that you can browse with your browser. I kinda
> like that.

*** AdaDoc, AdaBrowse, alibrowse (this may be the same as adda browse) seem
to be the most used forms of Ada documentor.

>
> - a style guide. The style guide provides rules and guidelines how to
> format your code. Result should be consistent formatting and naming in
> the code.
>
*** On my website (http://www.adaworld.com), in the "related Links" I have a
link to Ada 95 Quality and Style.  Which could serve as the basis for how we
produce code. and probably answers what we need for coding style. or at
least a good start to build our own standards on.

> - reviewers. People who review the code that developers want to be
> included in the library. Because we only want quality code, don't we? The
> question here is: what is quality code and what isn't?

*** that's always good practice.  (the better quality code, the better for
sure).  Who would these people be?  as a first phase, since each library
should have it's own testing unit/program.  I would suggest someone other
than the creator of the unit be there to test it or perhaps post it
somewhere for more than one person to trest it, review it, validate it.  In
my experience, the author of the code is always the worst tester of his
creations because he knows too much about it :-).  it allows him to make a
good test system, but in real world situations the fact that he knows so
well how everything works makes him a bad tester by definition :-).
>
> - using proven code. Reinventing the wheel is time consuming and it
> allows the bugs to introduce themself.

*** Indeed this is a good point.  However since this is a starting project I
wonder if this should be done as per what goes in the lbirary instead of
what's out there right now?  (by that I dont mean to say we never should use
already existing code, not at all....for instance, any code produced by
Stephen Leak I would almost add to the library with my eyes closed
(hehehe....I'll take my 20$ now Stephe ;-)....anything existing can go in,
however some of them (especially the bigger engines) might need more work to
make them acceptable to the decided guidelines and code style, minimum
documentation requirements, etc etc...so yes we shouldn't reinvent the wheel
unless reinventing the wheel is quicker than adjusting the wheel to move
forward (if you know what I mean). small existing bindings and libraries
which are small enough or clear enough code wise can definitaly be used too
but would still need to be reviewed (documentation wise possibly too) to fit
in the quality guidelines and coding styles we choose to make "official".
>
> And some wishes:
>
> - portability. It's nice to run it on many platforms. But please, no
> preprocessing stuff. That's horrible
>
> - CORBA. If all components have a CORBA idl interface, other programming
> languages can use the library too without too much hassle.
>
> - lots of developers. How to lure them?
*** A worm at the end of a hook ??    ;-)     Seriously though....this kind
of project will attract programmers by it's definition alone.  Also if it's
evolving (as in no long dead periods which might unintentionally suggest
that the library is dead).  of course the more the users to begin with the
better chances are that something will be moving in the project.  the
reviewers of code and standards could also product a weekly quick report of
what has been done (simple like what they reviewed, what was accepted and
what wasn't).  so visitors can see the work in progress.  Activity is always
attractive.

>
> What do you think of it? What requirements and/or wishes would you like
> to see to be added?

*** So far so good Ching.

*** We will have standards for coding style and such, like Stephe Leake
sugested we all need to be consistent with our naming conventions are a must
as well.  as in all package that open a file should all have the same name
which we could decide on... Do we Load the file, do we Open the file? and
use the same name throughout All of xAL.  Same thing for displaying on
screen, do we Print to screen, do we Output to screen, do we Display, you
know?  pick one name and stick to it.. First advantage of this, greatly
reduce the learning curve of the whole xAL hierarchy sinc euser will be able
to expect Open or Load (whichever we choose) to open a file from the HD).
so if he knows it for one package, he would know it for whatever 1000s of
packages we'd have....this is a must be in my book.

*** Documentation wise (not what is produced by AdaDoc or AdaBrowse) but for
whatever document used to explain the library we'll need a set of "sections"
that shuold be included to providing a minimum amount of documentation.  to
help users of the library answer questions quickly on how to attach the
library, how to use it (with sample calling examples or something.  enough
information for the average programmer to understand what the library or
binding does and how to use it effectively.  Sure on bigger libraries this
will require more work, but ti's a must to maintain the good quality of the
lbirary.

*** We'll also need a structure to accomodate the library that is also
consistent to all packages.  Directory structure for the library and for
each package too.  to be determined but could have \src for the soruce code,
docs, for documentation\ test for testing units...as an example.


>
> CBL

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

[Martin Dowie]

"Stephane Richard" <stephane.richard@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cOhhb.32354$kD3.26755@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> > - some system for documentation. Something like python or java
> > documentation. The kind that you can browse with your browser. I kinda
> > like that.
>
> *** AdaDoc, AdaBrowse, alibrowse (this may be the same as adda browse)
seem

Weird - that's the 2nd person in as many weeks I heard thinking that
AdaBrowse and
alibrowse did similar things! THEY DON'T :-)

Go have a look at AdaBrowse @
http://home.tiscalinet.ch/t_wolf/tw/ada95/adabrowse/
It's one of _the_ most Ada useful tools out there!

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

[Martin Krischik]

Ching Bon Lam wrote:

> - some system for documentation. Something like python or java
> documentation. The kind that you can browse with your browser. I kinda
> like that.
 
http://adadoc.sf.net

> - a style guide. The style guide provides rules and guidelines how to
> format your code. Result should be consistent formatting and naming in
> the code.

GNAT Style check:

--  Enable selected style checks xx = list of parameters:
--  a    check attribute casing
--  b    check no blanks at end of lines
--  c    check comment format
--  e    check end labels present
--  f    check no form feeds/vertical tabs in source
--  h    check no horizontal tabs in source
--  i    check if-then layout
--  k    check casing rules for keywords, identifiers
--  l    check reference manual layout
--  Mnnn check line length <= nnn characters
--          RM-2-2.14 min 200
--  n    check casing of package Standard identifiers
--  p    check pragma casing
--  o    check subprogram bodies in alphabetical order
--  r    check RM column layout
--  s    check separate subprogram specs present
--  t    check token separation rules

My suggestion: "-gnatyabcefhiklnporstM200"

Comments so that Analyze them.

> - reviewers. People who review the code that developers want to be
> included in the library. Because we only want quality code, don't we? The
> question here is: what is quality code and what isn't?

All warnings on should take care of a lot of problems:

--  Enable selected warning modes, xx = list of parameters:
--  a    turn on all optional warnings (except b,h)
--  b    turn on biased rounding warnings
--  c    turn on constant conditional warnings
--  e    treat all warnings as errors
--  f    turn on unreferenced formal warnings
--  h    turn on warnings for hiding variables
--  i*   turn on warnings for implementation units
--  l    turn on elaboration warnings
--  o*   turn on address clause overlay warnings
--  p    turn on warnings for ineffective pragma inline
--  r    turn on redundant construct warnings
--  u    turn on warnings for unused entities
                    --  *    indicates default in above list

Mind you, h is indeed quite tricky: "-gnatwab",

For easier use by beginners I would also suggest to restrict the use of the
"use" clause. Hint: use in procedures only:

procedure Get_ThreadId (
    Retval : out ThreadID)
is
    use Ada.Strings.Unbounded;
    use ThreadID_Map;
               
> - using proven code. Reinventing the wheel is time consuming and it
> allows the bugs to introduce themself.

Fine.
 
> And some wishes:
> 
> - portability. It's nice to run it on many platforms. But please, no
> preprocessing stuff. That's horrible

I would allow gnatprep - epecialy for portability. AdaCL is done for Linux,
Windows and OS/2 and without gnatprep I would have to make a lot extra
work. Compromise: the preprocessed files need to be checked into the CVS
archive so that non GNAT userst have access to them.

> - CORBA. If all components have a CORBA idl interface, other programming
> languages can use the library too without too much hassle.

Cool. How much extra work?

> - lots of developers. How to lure them?

I am allreasy lured.

With Regards

Martin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com

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

[Ching Bon Lam]

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

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

[Robert I. Eachus]

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

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

[Ching Bon Lam]

Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in
news:3005363.XOhgWTIyRm@linux1.krischik.com: 

> Ching Bon Lam wrote:
> 
>> - CORBA. If all components have a CORBA idl interface, other
>> programming languages can use the library too without too much
>> hassle. 
> 
> Cool. How much extra work?
> 

My impression (never worked with it) of CORBA is that once you have a IDL 
header file, 90% of the work involves filling in template code, which is 
straightforward to do if you already have an implementation.

Bon

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

[Freejack]

Has anyone considered developing a Lightweight Formal Method for creating
the Library?

i.e. Check out this link ....
	http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2003/01/george.html

Perhaps a similiar approach would help in developing a good Ada Standard
Library. Formal specs would aid in quality control, yet making them
"Lightweight" allow more room for those intimidated by formal
requirements.

Thoughts?

Freejack

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

[Marin David Condic]

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
 > 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.
 >
I wouldn't even *start* the project unless one or more vendors agreed up
front that (in principle) they would plan to distribute the library. I
wouldn't waste my time on some effort such as this if it was going to
meet with the same general attitude that has been exhibited so far:
"Prove that you're the dominant implementation and when enough of our
customers ask for it, we'll include it..." If they won't get on board
with the project, then neither will I.

I'd want them on board for a secondary reason: They can provide some of
the "Market Research" needed to decide what should be in the library and
what should be a priority. Otherwise, we'd again be running off to build
something with no clue as to what the end-users really want to see. Ada
has had enough of that already.

 >
 > 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
 >
I'd be willing to serve as a volunteer in some capacity and to some
extent, but not without some up-front participation by *some* of the
vendors. (At least one, possibly all.) I've tossed the turd into the
punch bowl - lets see if anyone reacts. ;-)

Realistically, there are limits as to what anyone is willing to
volunteer to do. I could see some SIGAda committee doing some work to
establish *how* a CAL would get built & managed and I'd even be willing
to participate in such a committee. But if something like this is going
to succeed and get done in something less than the customary ten years
it takes to get a language revision, its going to need *more* than
volunteers. It will need some people who are being paid to get results
within an acceptable timeframe.

I think if it was an all-volunteer SIGAda committee, we'd be waiting
probably two years or more before the committee could issue a report
that said "Here's how we expect to develop the library and what sort of
standards we've got for something to be acceptable, etc..." Two years
and all we'd have would be some paper (maybe) - no executable code? Am I
wrong? Would a SIGAda committee of volunteers get a structure in place
to develop/maintain a library, standards written up for coding style,
documentation style, etc., configuration and distribution management and
have a first release of an initial product in six months? How long do we
want to wait to see something concrete?

I think that realistically - while a SIGAda committee of volunteers
might have a role to play - someone is going to have to put up *some*
money and set some milestones or we'll be waiting a real long time to
see anything concrete. We don't have that much time.

I could imagine a bunch of ways of paying for it. The vendors could
dedicate some staff hours to a joint venture & collect up the result.
They could kick in a pool of cash that paid some salaries or other
compensation to some TBD group/organization that would develop the whole
thing. They could form up a business to build it and figure out how to
make it self-sustaining. They could see if there is any R&D money out
there from the government to do this. Any other ideas would be helpful,
but I think that realistically, we need to see some kind of funding or
the process will a) take way too long and b) get uncertain results.



 > 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.
 >
I'm not sure what the value of some kind of name registration would be.
Perhaps you can explain it better. It seems to me that you're proposing 
that, for example, "GtkAda" could register the root name "GtkAda" and 
nobody else would then use it for a library they intended to build? I'm 
not clear on what that does for establishing some kind of library. I 
don't see a bunch of people clamoring to use the name "GtkAda" as the 
root for their package now, so I'm not understanding what problem we're 
trying to solve here. Does GtkAda become some "Semi-Official" part of 
Ada by virtue of registering the name? How does that help?

It seems that you could have fifty different packages doing essentially 
what GtkAda does and all of them having some "Official" name and none of 
them being shipped by the vendors. How is that different than what we 
have now? AFAIK, we don't seem to have a namespace problem with the 
assorted libraries out there on the internet, so I'm wondering what we 
get for this?

MDC
-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "All reformers, however strict their social conscience,
      live in houses just as big as they can pay for."

          --Logan Pearsall Smith
======================================================================

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

[Stephane Richard]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9953 bytes --]

See my comments distributed in your message :-)

"Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:3F897415.6030804@noplace.com...
> I wouldn't even *start* the project unless one or more vendors agreed up
> front that (in principle) they would plan to distribute the library. I
> wouldn't waste my time on some effort such as this if it was going to
> meet with the same general attitude that has been exhibited so far:
> "Prove that you're the dominant implementation and when enough of our
> customers ask for it, we'll include it..." If they won't get on board
> with the project, then neither will I.

*** As far as the Ada Community, vendors, and others.  I can't really say I
haven't had much interactions with the related businesses.  But in general,
in the software industry, I do have to agree with you.  it's all about "give
me what I want, even if I do know what I want yet" Impress me then we'll
talk.  This almost forces other companies and developers to program in their
basements, try to revolutionize the world and see if it works, lots of
wasted time in so many cases that I can understand your point of view on
this.  looking at the writers guild however, it's the same thing, people
spend alot of time wrinting, in hopes that a producuer will want to make a
film out of their stories, get a best seller, etc etc....There is a reason
why the industry has gotten how it is, an dI was right there to see it
happen too...And although I can say you're right, I find it hard to see a
reason why we shouldn't try to revolutionize the world.  My Motto is if
that's what they want, than that's what they're gonna get basically.  Sure
it's a chance, the question is how big a change is it?  even outself the
vendors, if we have organizations to which the vendors respect working on
it, or approving it, our chances of influencing the vendors jsut got
multiplied by many folds.  it's a two way street.  We either influence the
vendors to influence the WG9, or we influence the WG9 to influence the
vendors :-).
>
> I'd want them on board for a secondary reason: They can provide some of
> the "Market Research" needed to decide what should be in the library and
> what should be a priority. Otherwise, we'd again be running off to build
> something with no clue as to what the end-users really want to see. Ada
> has had enough of that already.
>
*** I couldn't agree with you more, ada HAS had enough of that and needs no
more.  How do we solve this?  Sure there's that secondary reason, but that's
just one avenue, like you mentionned elsewhere, there's the vendors and
their customers, do we need to go through the vendors to get the customer's
opinions?  Maybe not :-).  and we'd still get the results we need, make what
the customers want.  The Market Research that the vendors might have done
probably wouldn't answer all our questions anyway, a market research is
usually very specific and asking "do you want or see yourself using a
library" such as is proposed by CAL might be to vague a question for any
research to arrive at an answer.  Library specific?  now you're talking.

>  >
>  > 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
>  >
> I'd be willing to serve as a volunteer in some capacity and to some
> extent, but not without some up-front participation by *some* of the
> vendors. (At least one, possibly all.) I've tossed the turd into the
> punch bowl - lets see if anyone reacts. ;-)
>
*** Turd huh?  I can't find that in the RM or the Rational...hehehehe ;-) is
Punch_Bowl a child package of Turd? or vice versa? ;-)


> Realistically, there are limits as to what anyone is willing to
> volunteer to do. I could see some SIGAda committee doing some work to
> establish *how* a CAL would get built & managed and I'd even be willing
> to participate in such a committee. But if something like this is going
> to succeed and get done in something less than the customary ten years
> it takes to get a language revision, its going to need *more* than
> volunteers. It will need some people who are being paid to get results
> within an acceptable timeframe.
>
*** to some point I do agree with that.  Well let's say I do agree that it
takes motivation to reach the statue such as is aimed by CAL.  People aren't
used to giving themselves a deadline when there's no paychecks at the end of
it or some form of recognition for the work done.  How about if I give you a
free Palm PDA? ;-).....in a lot of my personal projects I did manage to give
myself a deadline and reach it, but I do have to admit that it's not the
same context.  Let's say there was no one paid, at least not until
everythign as matured considerably (read "prove your .... blah blah blah ;-)
How could we motivate?

> I think if it was an all-volunteer SIGAda committee, we'd be waiting
> probably two years or more before the committee could issue a report
> that said "Here's how we expect to develop the library and what sort of
> standards we've got for something to be acceptable, etc..." Two years
> and all we'd have would be some paper (maybe) - no executable code? Am I
> wrong? Would a SIGAda committee of volunteers get a structure in place
> to develop/maintain a library, standards written up for coding style,
> documentation style, etc., configuration and distribution management and
> have a first release of an initial product in six months? How long do we
> want to wait to see something concrete?
>
*** I'll let Robert answer this one ;-).  or anyone else in any related
committee.

> I think that realistically - while a SIGAda committee of volunteers
> might have a role to play - someone is going to have to put up *some*
> money and set some milestones or we'll be waiting a real long time to
> see anything concrete. We don't have that much time.
>
*** Agreed, time is of the essence in this project.  everything depends on
when we get something started.  If we can't wait 2 years (or more) for
SIGAda to shake it's booty, can we also wait for vendors to become involved?
or should we "prove to them" there's that word again that they would have a
good reason to get involved?  Basically see my previous paragraph about
Influencing one to get to the other.   Which side is both quicker (probably)
and easier to accomplish?  taking we haev Robert that is already
volunterring, you think he believes in the potential of this library?  I
think so :-).  So do I.

> I could imagine a bunch of ways of paying for it. The vendors could
> dedicate some staff hours to a joint venture & collect up the result.
> They could kick in a pool of cash that paid some salaries or other
> compensation to some TBD group/organization that would develop the whole
> thing. They could form up a business to build it and figure out how to
> make it self-sustaining. They could see if there is any R&D money out
> there from the government to do this. Any other ideas would be helpful,
> but I think that realistically, we need to see some kind of funding or
> the process will a) take way too long and b) get uncertain results.
>
*** There are things that Vendors could tell us about yes I'm sure they are
after all vendors which gives them a range of information that we as
individuals may not have, as a business dont you think that if they were to
share this "exclusive" information with us they wouldn't want to be
compensated for it in the same way we'd wanna be compensated for CAL?
Corporate information is corporate information... Wouldn't they consider
that an investment in the project itself?  even if the reseearch is already
done by now and requires no extra man hours to produce a document would
could benifit from?

Now understand that I'm not debating your ideas here, but my experience in
the industry tells me that those are definite plausible answers you're
likely to hear from the vendors and as such "vendors that is" would
righfully allow themselves to state it.   Like you, and all programmers, who
wouldn't wanna get paid the big bucks for a project like this one?  I'd be
lying ot say I dont want money for this kind of effort. :-).  This is a
capitalist nation after all ;-)?  the question is when should we expect
compensation?

> I'm not sure what the value of some kind of name registration would be.
> Perhaps you can explain it better. It seems to me that you're proposing
> that, for example, "GtkAda" could register the root name "GtkAda" and
> nobody else would then use it for a library they intended to build? I'm
> not clear on what that does for establishing some kind of library. I
> don't see a bunch of people clamoring to use the name "GtkAda" as the
> root for their package now, so I'm not understanding what problem we're
> trying to solve here. Does GtkAda become some "Semi-Official" part of
> Ada by virtue of registering the name? How does that help?
>
*** I think I can clear this one quick and easy...if CAL would ahve been
taken how easy, today, would it be to come up with a new 3 letter name?
:-)....One that's representative of what we want this project to be?  If I
thought of a library and see the name is available, I'd jump on it to make
sure I dont have to think up a  new name for it one that might make less
sense than the original name :-).  if I could reserve it, I would :-)

> It seems that you could have fifty different packages doing essentially
> what GtkAda does and all of them having some "Official" name and none of
> them being shipped by the vendors. How is that different than what we
> have now? AFAIK, we don't seem to have a namespace problem with the
> assorted libraries out there on the internet, so I'm wondering what we
> get for this?
>

*** From that point view, I agree with you :-)...I want to know the answer
to that too so I'm waiting for Robert's reply :-).

> MDC
> -- 
>

-- 
St�phane Richard
"Ada World" Webmaster
http://www.adaworld.com

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

[Robert I. Eachus]

Marin David Condic wrote:

> I'm not sure what the value of some kind of name registration would be.
> Perhaps you can explain it better. It seems to me that you're proposing 
> that, for example, "GtkAda" could register the root name "GtkAda" and 
> nobody else would then use it for a library they intended to build? I'm 
> not clear on what that does for establishing some kind of library. I 
> don't see a bunch of people clamoring to use the name "GtkAda" as the 
> root for their package now, so I'm not understanding what problem we're 
> trying to solve here. Does GtkAda become some "Semi-Official" part of 
> Ada by virtue of registering the name? How does that help?
> 
> It seems that you could have fifty different packages doing essentially 
> what GtkAda does and all of them having some "Official" name and none of 
> them being shipped by the vendors. How is that different than what we 
> have now? AFAIK, we don't seem to have a namespace problem with the 
> assorted libraries out there on the internet, so I'm wondering what we 
> get for this?

First notice that without a group working on CAL or whatever name is 
chosen, this isn't much use at all. The bit about avoiding name 
conflicts might be helpful in a vacuum, but that is about it.

However, if we do have a serious collaborative library building effort 
going on, or several of them, then having the registrar in place and 
working deals with several major problems and has one side benefit.

The major problem is that there are names and areas which are potential 
minefields.  For example, GNADE uses ODBC.  ODBC is a Microsoft 
standard.  It would be really nice to name the package that supplies the 
thin binding to ODBC, something.ODBC, and have Microsoft's permission to 
do so.  This is part of what the registry is there to accomplish, just 
like the process for registering domain names on the Internet.

In addition there are some names which may be highly prized and others 
which should be used for implementations of particular bindings or 
libraries.  I don't care if CAL has a CAL.BLAS which has nothing to do 
with the Basic Linear Algebra System. (Well, I think it would be silly, 
and if I got a vote inside CAL I'd probably vote against it.) But I 
think any "root" library named BLAS would only be given to a (complete, 
working) BLAS implementation.  Similarly I can't see any legitimate 
standards group approving the name GtkAda for anyone except the authors 
of GtkAda.

Now comes the side benefit...  There are certain Microsoft bindings that 
won't get into CAL or any such library without Microsoft's blessing.  To 
the extent that Microsoft wants to control such bindings, they will. 
But if there is a registry in place and well managed, it will be a lot 
easier to get sensible Ada bindings to Microsoft (and other company's) 
interfaces registered and with sensible copyright restrictions.  No, 
that doesn't mean that we can talk Microsoft into going to open source 
licensing for everything.  But it should mean that they will agree to 
have the package spec free for copying without modification, even if 
Microsoft wants you to buy their implementation.  (But I expect that 
Microsoft will be willing to make any necessary Microsoft bindings 
available from their website.  They have in the past.)

I used Microsoft to be specific.  But there are other companies such as 
Oracle, Sun, and even ACT where before we are done we may have to deal 
with trademark and copyright issues.  Do it right from the start, and 
there may even be funding from someone other than the compiler 
companies.  But if we don't start out with the right intentions--to do 
our best to acknowledge and protect copyrights and trademarks without 
making the libraries impossible to use--then we will fail.
-- 
                                                     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

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

[Marin David Condic]

Stephane Richard wrote:
> 
> *** As far as the Ada Community, vendors, and others.  I can't really say I
> haven't had much interactions with the related businesses.  But in general,
> in the software industry, I do have to agree with you.  it's all about "give
> me what I want, even if I do know what I want yet" Impress me then we'll
> talk.  This almost forces other companies and developers to program in their
> basements, try to revolutionize the world and see if it works, lots of
> wasted time in so many cases that I can understand your point of view on
> this.  looking at the writers guild however, it's the same thing, people
> spend alot of time wrinting, in hopes that a producuer will want to make a
> film out of their stories, get a best seller, etc etc....There is a reason
> why the industry has gotten how it is, an dI was right there to see it
> happen too...And although I can say you're right, I find it hard to see a
> reason why we shouldn't try to revolutionize the world.  My Motto is if
> that's what they want, than that's what they're gonna get basically.  Sure
> it's a chance, the question is how big a change is it?  even outself the
> vendors, if we have organizations to which the vendors respect working on
> it, or approving it, our chances of influencing the vendors jsut got
> multiplied by many folds.  it's a two way street.  We either influence the
> vendors to influence the WG9, or we influence the WG9 to influence the
> vendors :-).

You're making it too complicated. The vendors themselves undoubtedly 
have some ideas about what they'd want to see in a library already. You 
just need some "general" notions - not detailed requirements. You'd get 
the same kind of thing by surveying some subset of their customers. 
You're not trying to get *perfect* alignment - you're just trying to be 
sure you are working in the right general direction. You'll close the 
loop and keep honing the end product along the way.


> 
> *** I couldn't agree with you more, ada HAS had enough of that and needs no
> more.  How do we solve this?  Sure there's that secondary reason, but that's
> just one avenue, like you mentionned elsewhere, there's the vendors and
> their customers, do we need to go through the vendors to get the customer's
> opinions?  Maybe not :-).  and we'd still get the results we need, make what
> the customers want.  The Market Research that the vendors might have done
> probably wouldn't answer all our questions anyway, a market research is
> usually very specific and asking "do you want or see yourself using a
> library" such as is proposed by CAL might be to vague a question for any
> research to arrive at an answer.  Library specific?  now you're talking.
> 
You don't need that much detail. You just want to be sure that if you're 
charging off to build a matrix arithmetic package that everyone wasn't 
screaming they wanted a container library *first*. So if you had a 
priority to build a library for capability X, you might wave some 
general ideas around in front of the vendors or some group of customers 
that would act as a beta test site and see what they say. You come back 
with some package specs or more detailed design for capability X and ask 
them "Is this close to what you had in mind? You just need to get some 
end-user involvement and feedback to be sure that you're not totally 
wasting your time.

> 
> *** to some point I do agree with that.  Well let's say I do agree that it
> takes motivation to reach the statue such as is aimed by CAL.  People aren't
> used to giving themselves a deadline when there's no paychecks at the end of
> it or some form of recognition for the work done.  How about if I give you a
> free Palm PDA? ;-).....in a lot of my personal projects I did manage to give
> myself a deadline and reach it, but I do have to admit that it's not the
> same context.  Let's say there was no one paid, at least not until
> everythign as matured considerably (read "prove your .... blah blah blah ;-)
> How could we motivate?
> 

It isn't just a matter of motivation. Its also a matter of being able to 
insist that certain deliverables show up and meet certain standards. You 
can always refuse to accept some work done by a volunteer because it 
doesn't meet standards, but you don't have much leverage to hold over 
the volunteer. If you go to the volunteer and say "I have this paycheck 
and if you want me to give it to you, you'll have to deliver X and Y and 
Z." (Even that doesn't always work! :-)

On one end of the spectrum, you have an all-volunteer army of developers 
and will likely get slow, chaotic results - but they will at least be 
"cheap" results. On the other end of the spectrum, you could hire a 
group of developers or outsoruce company to develop the whole thing by 
some given date and to some given standards. They don't get payments 
until the deliverables show up and pass inspection. You get really good 
control of the end result that way and you get it to meet your schedule, 
but you're going to pay through the nose to get it done. Between those 
two poles, you've got a variety of alternatives that will trade $$$ for 
relative levels of control. Get creative and try to figure out a way to 
do it with limited budget and you might have something there.

> 
> *** I'll let Robert answer this one ;-).  or anyone else in any related
> committee.
> 
My experience with committees is what I based my rectally extracted 
estimate on. I'm not criticizing committees, but I'm being realistic 
about what they can do. Nobody will have this as their full-time job, so 
it is at best a hobby, getting attention if and when time permits. There 
will be a dozen or more people involved, each with their own ideas and 
agendas and nobody will be able to say "I'm sorry all your great ideas 
and agendas are going into the trash heap, but *THIS* is what we're 
going to build..." (Since they're all volunteers, you've got to get them 
all to "volunteer" to go along with a given plan. At *best* that is very 
time consuming and at *worst* it never happens.) Realistically, the 
committee is likely to be separated geographically which makes having a 
"brainstorm" session difficult and makes it hard to get everyone acting 
as a team. Maybe yuou can get together for a few days once a quarter - 
if everyone on the committee is sponsored by their company or is 
independently wealthy enough to take the time off and buy their own 
plane tickets to support what we have already said is a "Hobby".

You can see where I'm going here. A committee under the aegis of SIGAda 
may be a useful thing for some parts of this, but it will move real 
*ssssslllllooooowwwwww* - if at all, and it could be *years* before they 
get any real results. They might properly serve as the "gatekeepers" - 
whoever develops the library has to wave it past them to get final 
approval to make it "Official". I just wouldn't see such a committee as 
being the source of production.

I think there are better ways and mostly they involve some form of 
collective development on the part of the vendors. Let *them* put 
together a team in some manner and fund its development in some way. 
They get the end product and can go put it in front of some SIGAda 
committee to get its acceptance as something with the stamp of "Ada 
Approved" on it.

> 
> *** Agreed, time is of the essence in this project.  everything depends on
> when we get something started.  If we can't wait 2 years (or more) for
> SIGAda to shake it's booty, can we also wait for vendors to become involved?
> or should we "prove to them" there's that word again that they would have a
> good reason to get involved?  Basically see my previous paragraph about
> Influencing one to get to the other.   Which side is both quicker (probably)
> and easier to accomplish?  taking we haev Robert that is already
> volunterring, you think he believes in the potential of this library?  I
> think so :-).  So do I.
> 

You can start developing anything you want. I have stated - and am 
sticking to it - that I won't do anything unless the vendors are somehow 
involved. The reason? I've seen this before and I've been involved 
before and it goes nowhere really fast with lots of effort out the door 
and little to show for it. I've stated here before that if you and I (or 
any other team of developers) got together and developed the most 
wonderful library in the world on speculation that we could get it 
adopted, its still just another one of many sitting on some website and 
with no more likelihood that it will become "The Thing" than any of the 
other libraries out there. If anything, it starts out behind the line 
since other libraries already have *some* users. If that's where you'd 
want to spend your effort, better we start with something like the Booch 
Components or one of the other existing libraries and try to get the 
vendors to accept *that* as the basis. It hasn't happened. It could have 
happened. Its not going to happen. More effort trying to make it happen 
is IMHO wasted.


> 
> *** There are things that Vendors could tell us about yes I'm sure they are
> after all vendors which gives them a range of information that we as
> individuals may not have, as a business dont you think that if they were to
> share this "exclusive" information with us they wouldn't want to be
> compensated for it in the same way we'd wanna be compensated for CAL?
> Corporate information is corporate information... Wouldn't they consider
> that an investment in the project itself?  even if the reseearch is already
> done by now and requires no extra man hours to produce a document would
> could benifit from?
> 
You're over complicating it. You just want them to tell you what sort of 
things their customers are asking for. They're the "consumer" of the 
library - why wouldn't they want to help you build what their customers 
want?



> Now understand that I'm not debating your ideas here, but my experience in
> the industry tells me that those are definite plausible answers you're
> likely to hear from the vendors and as such "vendors that is" would
> righfully allow themselves to state it.   Like you, and all programmers, who
> wouldn't wanna get paid the big bucks for a project like this one?  I'd be
> lying ot say I dont want money for this kind of effort. :-).  This is a
> capitalist nation after all ;-)?  the question is when should we expect
> compensation?
> 
I need to pay the bills. I can spend only so much time being charitable 
to compiler vendors and then my wife will start insisting I get away 
from the front of the computer and get out and mow the lawn. I'm willing 
to give *some* charity to the vendors and the Ada community, but *some* 
effort is fairly limited and it won't be enough to produce a really 
comprehensive library. I doubt I'm really unique. Do the vendors want a 
library? Do they want it bad enough to fund its development in some 
manner? No? Then Ada won't get one. That's my prediction.


> *** I think I can clear this one quick and easy...if CAL would ahve been
> taken how easy, today, would it be to come up with a new 3 letter name?
> :-)....One that's representative of what we want this project to be?  If I
> thought of a library and see the name is available, I'd jump on it to make
> sure I dont have to think up a  new name for it one that might make less
> sense than the original name :-).  if I could reserve it, I would :-)
> 
Lets see.... There's 26 ways to fill the first position, 26 ways to fill 
the second.... My calculator says 17576 names. And, if needed, I can go 
to four characters. 456,976. Or we could toss in numbers. Or I could 
stretch it out into a really long name. I really am not worried that 
someone is going to steal away "CAL" from me and produce a competing 
library. I just don't know what we're going to see with some kind of 
registry that really matters that much at this point. I could be 
persuaded - but I don't understand what is being accomplished.

MDC

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "All reformers, however strict their social conscience,
      live in houses just as big as they can pay for."

          --Logan Pearsall Smith
======================================================================

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

[Marin David Condic]

Well, O.K. If what you're saying is that there would be some 
organization producing a "Common" Ada library (or whatever it is 
ultimately called) and you expect that there are people who would want 
to contribute pieces - such as bindings, etc. - then yes, I can see a 
need to manage the names. But I'd think that we'd want to first see some 
notion of general acceptance of the concept of a CAL (or insert name 
here) and how it would be produced. Whoever is doing the publishing 
could worry about name allocation.

MDC


Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> 
> 
> First notice that without a group working on CAL or whatever name is 
> chosen, this isn't much use at all. The bit about avoiding name 
> conflicts might be helpful in a vacuum, but that is about it.
> 
> However, if we do have a serious collaborative library building effort 
> going on, or several of them, then having the registrar in place and 
> working deals with several major problems and has one side benefit.
> 
> The major problem is that there are names and areas which are potential 
> minefields.  For example, GNADE uses ODBC.  ODBC is a Microsoft 
> standard.  It would be really nice to name the package that supplies the 
> thin binding to ODBC, something.ODBC, and have Microsoft's permission to 
> do so.  This is part of what the registry is there to accomplish, just 
> like the process for registering domain names on the Internet.
> 
> In addition there are some names which may be highly prized and others 
> which should be used for implementations of particular bindings or 
> libraries.  I don't care if CAL has a CAL.BLAS which has nothing to do 
> with the Basic Linear Algebra System. (Well, I think it would be silly, 
> and if I got a vote inside CAL I'd probably vote against it.) But I 
> think any "root" library named BLAS would only be given to a (complete, 
> working) BLAS implementation.  Similarly I can't see any legitimate 
> standards group approving the name GtkAda for anyone except the authors 
> of GtkAda.
> 
> Now comes the side benefit...  There are certain Microsoft bindings that 
> won't get into CAL or any such library without Microsoft's blessing.  To 
> the extent that Microsoft wants to control such bindings, they will. But 
> if there is a registry in place and well managed, it will be a lot 
> easier to get sensible Ada bindings to Microsoft (and other company's) 
> interfaces registered and with sensible copyright restrictions.  No, 
> that doesn't mean that we can talk Microsoft into going to open source 
> licensing for everything.  But it should mean that they will agree to 
> have the package spec free for copying without modification, even if 
> Microsoft wants you to buy their implementation.  (But I expect that 
> Microsoft will be willing to make any necessary Microsoft bindings 
> available from their website.  They have in the past.)
> 
> I used Microsoft to be specific.  But there are other companies such as 
> Oracle, Sun, and even ACT where before we are done we may have to deal 
> with trademark and copyright issues.  Do it right from the start, and 
> there may even be funding from someone other than the compiler 
> companies.  But if we don't start out with the right intentions--to do 
> our best to acknowledge and protect copyrights and trademarks without 
> making the libraries impossible to use--then we will fail.


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "All reformers, however strict their social conscience,
      live in houses just as big as they can pay for."

          --Logan Pearsall Smith
======================================================================

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

[Robert I. Eachus]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Well, O.K. If what you're saying is that there would be some 
> organization producing a "Common" Ada library (or whatever it is 
> ultimately called) and you expect that there are people who would want 
> to contribute pieces - such as bindings, etc. - then yes, I can see a 
> need to manage the names. But I'd think that we'd want to first see some 
> notion of general acceptance of the concept of a CAL (or insert name 
> here) and how it would be produced. Whoever is doing the publishing 
> could worry about name allocation.

I don't want the (possibly volunteer) developers spending all their time 
dealing with naming issues--which as I pointed out can include trademark 
and copyright issues.  That is the stuff that formal standards 
committees can be good at.  Look at all the chaos caused by AdaPower 
once the site was no longer maintained.  Having an authority to resolve 
naming disputes is very helpful when it comes time to clear the underbrush.

But again, as I said, it is useless without a group of developers who 
want to do things right.  With active developers using it, it becomes 
one of those committees where the chair does several hours of work a 
week.  Everyone else on the committee does a couple hours of work every 
three or four months, when the chairperson actually needs the committee 
to make an official decision.

-- 
                                                     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

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

[Stephane Richard]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2772 bytes --]


"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3F89F96F.5050003@comcast.net...
>
> I don't want the (possibly volunteer) developers spending all their time
> dealing with naming issues--which as I pointed out can include trademark
> and copyright issues.  That is the stuff that formal standards
> committees can be good at.  Look at all the chaos caused by AdaPower
> once the site was no longer maintained.  Having an authority to resolve
> naming disputes is very helpful when it comes time to clear the
underbrush.

*** Indeed it can get very complicated to manage those trademark and
copyright issues and as for naming, I can imagine for example
- Format as a Text Formatting string
- Format as an OS service to format a floppy drive or hard drive
- Format as Method of an object that produces an output.

All three with trademarks ;-).   How much coffee would be needed to resolve
that one? ;-). In our library, provided these 3 situations are in 3 branches
of our Tree or at least in 3 ramifications of the same branch, there would
be no conflicts right?

Another situation I wonder about.  Let's say GtkAda is registered already
along with it's hiearchy of libraries that form the GtkAda Project.  Then I
decide to add to that library (say a series of controls for a Music studio
software, like knobs, led indicators, mixer slider controls, etc etc). and I
want those registered in the library.  Who would be making the decision?
GtkAda, the committee, would I need to put it elsewhere in the tree, would
every big library like GtkAda need to have a "contributions" branch under it
for this kind of addition?

>
> But again, as I said, it is useless without a group of developers who
> want to do things right.  With active developers using it, it becomes
> one of those committees where the chair does several hours of work a
> week.  Everyone else on the committee does a couple hours of work every
> three or four months, when the chairperson actually needs the committee
> to make an official decision.
>
*** Are you saying that it would take 3 or 4 months to reach a decision for
every issue?  or that every 3 or 4 months, the committee would take every in
the past 3 or 4 months and resolve them?


> -- 
>                                                      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
>



-- 
St�phane Richard
"Ada World" Webmaster
http://www.adaworld.com

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

[Marin David Condic]

There's a job for some TBD SIGAda committee - and one that is best dealt 
with by a committee. As you observe, its potentially time consuming, so 
you'd want to be sure it was adequately covered.

As you bring up AdaPower, this is an illustration of the problem with a 
volunteer effort. I don't know how actively David Botton is doing 
anything with it at this time, but he clearly spent some time making a 
wonderful website that served a very useful purpose. However, being as 
its a "volunteer" effort, its difficult to keep putting energy into it 
over time when other priorities come up in life. We could also sit here 
and dream up "Requirements" for AdaPower and try to impose them on David 
- and they might be really wonderful and important requirements too - 
but we aren't paying him to do the work, so how could we expect to get 
it done?

That's why I'm thinking that a CAL would need some paid support in order 
to succeed. There might be some amount of work that is done by 
volunteers - I could imagine some people submitting specialized chunks 
of the library just because they want to see it come along with Ada 
compilers for their own convenience, etc. But developing and managing 
the library over time is likely to be something too big and too 
important to leave in the hands of volunteers.

MDC

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> 
> 
> I don't want the (possibly volunteer) developers spending all their time 
> dealing with naming issues--which as I pointed out can include trademark 
> and copyright issues.  That is the stuff that formal standards 
> committees can be good at.  Look at all the chaos caused by AdaPower 
> once the site was no longer maintained.  Having an authority to resolve 
> naming disputes is very helpful when it comes time to clear the underbrush.
> 
> But again, as I said, it is useless without a group of developers who 
> want to do things right.  With active developers using it, it becomes 
> one of those committees where the chair does several hours of work a 
> week.  Everyone else on the committee does a couple hours of work every 
> three or four months, when the chairperson actually needs the committee 
> to make an official decision.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "All reformers, however strict their social conscience,
      live in houses just as big as they can pay for."

          --Logan Pearsall Smith
======================================================================

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

[Robert I. Eachus]

Stephane Richard wrote:

> Another situation I wonder about.  Let's say GtkAda is registered already
> along with it's hiearchy of libraries that form the GtkAda Project.  Then I
> decide to add to that library (say a series of controls for a Music studio
> software, like knobs, led indicators, mixer slider controls, etc etc). and I
> want those registered in the library.  Who would be making the decision?
> GtkAda, the committee, would I need to put it elsewhere in the tree, would
> every big library like GtkAda need to have a "contributions" branch under it
> for this kind of addition?

Whoever "owned" the GtkAda root would be making the decisions.  That is 
in part what the registry does.  It establishes a mechanism for:

1) Easily determining whether or not a name has been used.
2) If it is not currently used/registered, who you have to talk to if 
you want to register it.
3) Removing from consideration any registered names that have expired or 
for some reason or other been overcome by events.  Since Ada allows you 
to put in a one-line library renaming if a library you use has moved, 
all you need is a map to tell you where it went. ;-)

> *** Are you saying that it would take 3 or 4 months to reach a decision for
> every issue?  or that every 3 or 4 months, the committee would take every in
> the past 3 or 4 months and resolve them?

Neither.  That every three or four months something would come along 
that required thought, and a committee decision.  Say both the X Windows 
consortium and Microsoft want to register a Windows tree.  Or someone 
other than Sun wants to create a Java tree.

Compare those to the much more normal cases, like ACT wanting to 
register GNAT, etc.

-- 
                                                     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

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

[Stephane Richard]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2766 bytes --]

Ahh, now it makes sense :-).

By the way, I've been giving thought to your way of thinking for that
hierarchy I built couple days back...more I think about it, the more it
makes sense to have each OS as part of the rest of the hierarchy.
Especially, but not limited to, any GUI libraries. which wouldk require OS
specific access to draw controls on a form, or something.

-- 
St�phane Richard
"Ada World" Webmaster
http://www.adaworld.com


"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3F8B03BB.90103@comcast.net...
> Stephane Richard wrote:
>
> > Another situation I wonder about.  Let's say GtkAda is registered
already
> > along with it's hiearchy of libraries that form the GtkAda Project.
Then I
> > decide to add to that library (say a series of controls for a Music
studio
> > software, like knobs, led indicators, mixer slider controls, etc etc).
and I
> > want those registered in the library.  Who would be making the decision?
> > GtkAda, the committee, would I need to put it elsewhere in the tree,
would
> > every big library like GtkAda need to have a "contributions" branch
under it
> > for this kind of addition?
>
> Whoever "owned" the GtkAda root would be making the decisions.  That is
> in part what the registry does.  It establishes a mechanism for:
>
> 1) Easily determining whether or not a name has been used.
> 2) If it is not currently used/registered, who you have to talk to if
> you want to register it.
> 3) Removing from consideration any registered names that have expired or
> for some reason or other been overcome by events.  Since Ada allows you
> to put in a one-line library renaming if a library you use has moved,
> all you need is a map to tell you where it went. ;-)
>
> > *** Are you saying that it would take 3 or 4 months to reach a decision
for
> > every issue?  or that every 3 or 4 months, the committee would take
every in
> > the past 3 or 4 months and resolve them?
>
> Neither.  That every three or four months something would come along
> that required thought, and a committee decision.  Say both the X Windows
> consortium and Microsoft want to register a Windows tree.  Or someone
> other than Sun wants to create a Java tree.
>
> Compare those to the much more normal cases, like ACT wanting to
> register GNAT, etc.
>
> -- 
>                                                      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
>