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: 3879 bytes --]


"Marius Amado Alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote in message
news:mailman.232.1067340398.25614.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org...
>
> This thread is going in circles! Has it not been established already
> that this kind of effort would be "just another Ada website"? First
> there was adahome (?), then adapower, now adaworld. These sites were
> born and died in succession. Is there something essentially new about
> adaworld that will make it avert the same fate?
>
*** Two things, one from the library itself which will server two different
purposes.  One from the APIWG which could and would use this
library/architecture of ours as a central reference for naming conventions
of their API.  which gives it 3 purposes just on the library/reference side
of things.

> No. For the 30th time (?), Listen to Marin and myself, for what this
> "something" might be: *commitment from Ada BIG players.*

*** Well Ada World is far from dead, it was just born :-).  As for the "Ada
big players" Well in about an hour, I will be in contact with ACT with one
goal, to know what they think of this library, if they see themselves using
it provided it lives up to certain standards (which may or may not be the
same as what governs the standard of Ada itself.  If they are interested in
such a project, what insught they could and/or would give us towards
building a library that would answer more of the user's questions.  I'll let
you know more after I get the phone call.  But to me it shows interest that
they are willing to at least have a talk with me about it. :-)  no?  Curious
at least? ;-)

*** I'm well away of adahome, adapower's efforts towards a central library
and repositories, but in my eye, what we are trying to do here differ from
the past efforts in more than one way.

1. Although part of existing libraries and code out there may be
incorporated into the library, (unless that lart has changed recently) they
wont just be thrown intoa  fiolder somewhere in the hierarchy and considered
"integrated".  They willb e filtered, reformatted, documented to at least a
minimal degree that will render them easy to understand/use proficiently as
a whole or as part of a bigger library.

2. As well as being a library and to be considered as such.  It will also
server as a central database (or other) of what's out there, a central
reference of anything and everything that is out there not necessarily
limited by data structures and bindings, but depending on the purpose of,
maybe even applications.   that can be used not only be the ARG or compiler
vendors, but by aonyone else looking to create a library, binding or other
to assure there is no name conflict which will also assure that the library
has the foundations to grow instead of conflict with itself.

3. On the side of the APIWG there are still discussions and deisions to be
made, but a member has suggested that, and I quote (as per a reply I
received): "What we need is a repository that organizes the APIs in a
generally agreed nomenclature, much like Java does it. A WG
could come up with the nomenclature; you could run the repository".  Just
that side of could be useful too not just to the APIWG, but again to anyone
else wanting to add an API without name conflicts or others.

For these reasons which I'm sure ramifies into a multitude of inter related
other reasons :-).  I see a very different outcome to this effort than those
attempted in the past.  Things are moving along with Robert taking the
initiative to build what he's building right now.

Me, on my side as you can see, I'm looking at Robert's structures as you can
now all do since he posted in to the group, and I'm also trying to see who's
interested and what it could mean for the hence my discussions with ACT, the
APIWG, a few other members from other WGs

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