Re: Standard Library Interest?

["Stephane Richard" <stephane.richard@verizon.net>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2931 bytes --]

"Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:3F836528.9020906@noplace.com...
> I don't know what the APIWG is up to, but if the "API" part of their
> name is any indication it would seem they're aiming at providing an
> "API" - a package spec rather than a spec and body. In other words
> "Every Man For Himself" which has historically been a) expensive and b)
> not entirely successful.
>
> Maybe they *do* want to provide a reference implementation. If so, I
> could get on board with that. But I'd like to see some indication that
> the vendors and/or the ARG has some intention of accepting and blessing
> (and distributing) the net result.
>
> MDC

I emailed a contact at the APIWG who also forwarded my email to select
contacts of his through APIWG, WG9 and SIG Ada.  Gotten 4 replies so far and
expecting more on the way.

Thus far, they seem to say that because the standarization process is one of
concensus it's hard to make things happen faster they mentionned that to
treat a library/amendment etc etc...as mature, they believe it should be
running and proven stable in the course of 5 years after which it is deemed
mature. Add to the the initial 5 years for a standard revision (as any
standard based on consensus) and there's your 10 years turnover.  They are
not against a centralized API central (the APIWG would mostly take care of
APIs however they showed interest in other types of libraries such as data
structures, components and the like).  They said that if APIWG won't do
these other libraries that another working group would be able to accomodate
these types of libraries/bindings.

They are not against a sub standard repository either, in which changes
could happen on a daily bases.  As illustrated by some companies already
performing this exercise and developing their own additions to the standard
that they ship with their distributions.  Additions, not changes to the
standards :-).

As quoted: "Standardization is an admittedly slow process, because it is
fundamentally
built on consensus.  On the other hand, there is nothing precluding a group
of users establishing their own reusable libraries, and making them
widely available.  De-facto standards are often just as good, or
even better, than de-jure standards. "   I'm no latin speaking individual
and I'm curious to know the difference between De-Facto and De-Jure :-).
although I have an idea based on the context if this quote hehe..

I dont know if I can get a written and signed blessing document (then
again...ya never know :-) out of it. but so far as per the replies I've
received it, they welcome the idea of a centralized sour of mature libraries
and APIs. Most of those who replied mentionned it right in their emails.

I'll keep you posted as I get more replies and ask all the questions I have
on my mind.

ANd now You're up to date.
-- 
St�phane Richard
"Ada World" Webmaster
http://www.adaworld.com