ANN: GMGPL Claw Page

ANN: GMGPL Claw Page

[David Botton]

I've added a new page to AdaPower called the GMGPL Claw page.
http://www.adapower.com/claw
(AdaPower has and always will be an open forum for all Ada projects
regardless of my own projects and views.)

The GClaw project page is to create a central place for community work on
the GMGPL version of Claw and to post various additions, examples and tools
for all versions of CLAW

There are a number of examples for using Claw that were previous sent in by
Tom Moran

I hope to put up some additions of my own to CLAW tomorrow.

I encourage others to submit examples, patches, and tools they may have
written or will write in the future.

(No, this does not mean I am giving up GWindows. In fact there is even a new
beta version up and I should have a number of updates ready with in the
week:-)

David Botton

Re: ANN: GMGPL Claw Page

[Jason King]

Dave, Randy
This is what I like about the Ada community.  Despite differences of 
opinion, everybody can take steps to work together.  I'm an Ada newbie, 
came to it from PL/SQL of all places, but when I know more I'll try to 
contribute like the both of you.
David Botton wrote:
> I've added a new page to AdaPower called the GMGPL Claw page.
> http://www.adapower.com/claw

Re: GMGPL Claw Page

[David Botton]

I've added to the Claw page - http://www.adapower.com/claw

* regclaw -- Allows registration of Claw as a default GNAT library
* ActiveX from Claw -- An example that demonstrates how to add ActiveX
controls to Claw
    (Yes, it is true that you use GWindows to do this, but there is no
reason if a person prefers Claw, that they couldn't use GWindows just to do
this)

David Botton

"David Botton" <David@Botton.com> wrote in message
news:ucn0la3jgistad@corp.supernews.com...
> I hope to put up some additions of my own to CLAW tomorrow.

Re: ANN: GMGPL Claw Page

[Ted Dennison]

"David Botton" <David@Botton.com> wrote in message news:<ucn0la3jgistad@corp.supernews.com>...
> I've added a new page to AdaPower called the GMGPL Claw page.
> http://www.adapower.com/claw
...
> The GClaw project page is to create a central place for community work on
> the GMGPL version of Claw and to post various additions, examples and tools
> for all versions of CLAW

Is RR not going to be accepting such submissions themselves? I suppose
they couldn't really roll them into the full version if they did.

I have some stuff I've been looking for a good home for. If its a good
fit, I'll submit it.

-- 
T.E.D.
         Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo:
Ted_Dennison)
         Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

Re: ANN: GMGPL Claw Page

[David Botton]

The GMGPL Claw project is to coordinate efforts on the GMGPL version. RR is
of course welcome to take from the project as they see fit provided the lic.
works out, ie. if I was to write an extension to GMGPL Claw and made it
available also under the GMGPL, they would not be able to incorporate it in
to their non-GMGPL version.

You choose the lic. of your submissions (direct extensions to GMGPL Claw of
course would have to be made as either GMGPL or Public Domain). Since the
extension is (c) yourself, you can of course choose to send RR a copy (under
different lic. terms) also for incorporation in the full version in addition
to it being incorporated in the GMGPL version.

The goal of this project like most others using the GMGPL. Is to promote
Ada. The more active projects the better!

David Botton


"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:4519e058.0204290715.2a9cec03@posting.google.com...
> Is RR not going to be accepting such submissions themselves? I suppose
> they couldn't really roll them into the full version if they did.
>
> I have some stuff I've been looking for a good home for. If its a good
> fit, I'll submit it.
>
> --
> T.E.D.
>          Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo:
> Ted_Dennison)
>          Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

Re: ANN: GMGPL Claw Page

[Randy Brukardt]

David Botton wrote in message ...
>The GMGPL Claw project is to coordinate efforts on the GMGPL version.
RR is
>of course welcome to take from the project as they see fit provided the
lic.
>works out, ie. if I was to write an extension to GMGPL Claw and made it
>available also under the GMGPL, they would not be able to incorporate
it in
>to their non-GMGPL version.
>
>You choose the lic. of your submissions (direct extensions to GMGPL
Claw of
>course would have to be made as either GMGPL or Public Domain). Since
the
>extension is (c) yourself, you can of course choose to send RR a copy
(under
>different lic. terms) also for incorporation in the full version in
addition
>to it being incorporated in the GMGPL version.
>
>The goal of this project like most others using the GMGPL. Is to
promote
>Ada. The more active projects the better!

David is exactly right. It's your choice if you want to let us use your
submissions in the full version of Claw or not.

If you want to let us use them unconditionally, either make them Public
Domain, or make them GMGPL and contact me separately to let us use them
in the full Claw. (No promises, of course.)

If you want to let us use them IFF we make the full Claw GMGPL, make
them GMGPL and insist on that for us to use them. This would be a
potential way to convince us to open up full Claw: if there are GMGPLed
components out there that we just have to have, then that may force me
to apply the GMGPL to the entire Claw bindings.

If you never want to let us use them in any circumstances, then you'll
have to use a more restrictive, non-GPL license.

Happy (and safer) Windows programming!

          Randy Brukardt

Re: ANN: GMGPL Claw Page

[tmoran]

> It's your choice if you want to let us use your
> submissions in the full version of Claw or not.
  I don't of course know what the future holds, but currently Claw holds
to its design goal of being portable Ada*.  Clearly any additions must
either be similarly portable across compilers, or some method should be
established to indicate what additions are restricted to customers of a
particular compiler vendor.
* There are a few differences, mostly to work around different compiler's
bugs, but they are very limited and the Claw user normally needn't know
nor care about them.

Re: ANN: GMGPL Claw Page

[David Botton]

I certainly agree that those additions that are not cross compiler should be
marked as such. I would recommend any one holding back a submission though
because of lack of cross compiler compatability.

David Botton

<tmoran@acm.org> wrote in message
news:Y_jz8.3116$4R.1379913861@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Clearly any additions must
> either be similarly portable across compilers, or some method should be
> established to indicate what additions are restricted to customers of a
> particular compiler vendor.

Re: ANN: GMGPL Claw Page

[Ted Dennison]

tmoran@acm.org wrote in message news:<Y_jz8.3116$4R.1379913861@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
>   I don't of course know what the future holds, but currently Claw holds
> to its design goal of being portable Ada*.  Clearly any additions must
> either be similarly portable across compilers, or some method should be
> established to indicate what additions are restricted to customers of a
> particular compiler vendor.

The bindings I've built (I'm particularly thinking of my high-level NT
service bindings) I have tried fairly hard to make portable. That's
cheifly because *I* want to be able to reuse them, no matter what
project or compiler I may find myself working on. However, that's
quite tricky to do when you have to use importing pragmas, and don't
have a second Windows compiler to try it out with. But hopefully my
portability issues are confied to:

o  Using a particular convention name (eg: "stdcall") that may not
exist on other compilers. (The only predefined one is "C", which is
not what a lot of Win32 uses).
o  Assuming Ada's Address type is compatable with C pointers.

For my interface types, I always use types from Intefaces.C.* (except
record/strucs, which always get rep-claused).

-- 
T.E.D.
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

Re: ANN: GMGPL Claw Page

[tmoran]

> portability issues are confied to:
>
> o  Using a particular convention name (eg: "stdcall") that may not
> exist on other compilers. (The only predefined one is "C", which is
> not what a lot of Win32 uses).
> o  Assuming Ada's Address type is compatable with C pointers.
  "stdcall" is already used in Claw.  It works on Apex, Gnat, ObjectAda,
and Janus.
  Claw uses 'access', not system.address, which is not, in fact, always
the same thing as a C pointer.

  I really can't understand why, given the examples of
System.Address_To_Access_Conversions, Interfaces.C.Strings,
Interfaces.C.Pointers, and a given a demonstrated ability to move
comfortably among different abstractions, anyone would use such a low
level, implementation defined thing as System.Address.  Given the
frequency with which it's done in c.l.a. postings, I guess it seems
reasonable to more than a few people.  #.#

Re: ANN: GMGPL Claw Page

[Ted Dennison]

tmoran@acm.org wrote in message news:<9gBz8.4052$wr1.2380283950@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
>   Claw uses 'access', not system.address, which is not, in fact, always
> the same thing as a C pointer.

Right. I seem to rememer a discussion here a long time ago, where the
general conclusion was that, while in theory there is no guarantee
System.Adress is implemented in any specific way, in practice
System.Address is more likely to match up with a C pointer than an
access type is.

>   I really can't understand why, given the examples of
> System.Address_To_Access_Conversions, Interfaces.C.Strings,
> Interfaces.C.Pointers, and a given a demonstrated ability to move
> comfortably among different abstractions, anyone would use such a low
> level, implementation defined thing as System.Address.  Given the
> frequency with which it's done in c.l.a. postings, I guess it seems
> reasonable to more than a few people.  #.#

I think the only place I ever use it any more is in bindings (where
you are generally at a icky low level anyway). However, I'd have to
check my code to see exactly where it is used. I know I'm rather
liberal with Addresses on unused pointer parameters, but I can't
remember how I was doing *used* pointer parameters. I'm pretty sure I
don't make much use of Interfaces.C.Pointers. Perhaps that's a bad
move?

Anyway, the possible issues with System.Address is why I mentioned it.
I'm certianly willing to learn the proper portable way to get at C
pointers, and from the looks of things, the folks who wrote Claw would
know a thing or two about portability. :-)


-- 
T.E.D. 
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

Re: ANN: GMGPL Claw Page

[Randy Brukardt]

Ted Dennison wrote in message
<4519e058.0205010856.191542a4@posting.google.com>...
>tmoran@acm.org wrote in message
news:<9gBz8.4052$wr1.2380283950@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
>>   Claw uses 'access', not system.address, which is not, in fact,
always
>> the same thing as a C pointer.
>
>Right. I seem to rememer a discussion here a long time ago, where the
>general conclusion was that, while in theory there is no guarantee
>System.Adress is implemented in any specific way, in practice
>System.Address is more likely to match up with a C pointer than an
>access type is.


No, that's wrong. If you want a C pointer in your Ada program, all you
need to do is declare one:

    type Access_Whatever is access Whatever;
    pragma Convention (C, Access_Whatever);

If a compiler accepts this and doesn't give you an access type
compatible with a C pointer, you've got a seriously buggy compiler! Best
find a different one. A compiler might reject it, depending on what
Whatever is, but that generally doesn't happen.

One a few targets (like the Unisys 2200 compiler we did), Ada accesses
and C pointers don't have the same representation. (C pointers are bit
pointers on that machine, and we didn't want to pay for that when we
didn't need it in Ada.)

>I think the only place I ever use it any more is in bindings (where
>you are generally at a icky low level anyway). However, I'd have to
>check my code to see exactly where it is used. I know I'm rather
>liberal with Addresses on unused pointer parameters, but I can't
>remember how I was doing *used* pointer parameters. I'm pretty sure I
>don't make much use of Interfaces.C.Pointers. Perhaps that's a bad
>move?


No, using the above is just as good. Just be sure to (somehow) declare
that you want a C pointer. As far as "unused" pointer parameters go, we
just use Claw.DWord for that on Claw. That is the right size, and
portability to another OS is not an issue for Claw.

>Anyway, the possible issues with System.Address is why I mentioned it.
>I'm certianly willing to learn the proper portable way to get at C
>pointers, and from the looks of things, the folks who wrote Claw would
>know a thing or two about portability. :-)


At least between Windows platform compilers...

          Randy.

Re: ANN: GMGPL Claw Page

[Ted Dennison]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message news:<ucrar97otkuhde@corp.supernews.com>...
> David is exactly right. It's your choice if you want to let us use your
> submissions in the full version of Claw or not.

My chief concern here is that we end up forking things, and then have
trouble rolling back in new changes from RR, which you said you make
periodicly.

> If you want to let us use them unconditionally, either make them Public
> Domain, or make them GMGPL and contact me separately to let us use them
> in the full Claw. (No promises, of course.)

The bindings I wrote are currently GPL-ed inside of the SETI@Home
Service. I've been hoping for some time to find a better home for (at
least some) of them. I was considering releasing them on their own as
Public Domain, in hopes that someone somewhere would go pick them up.

I'll take a look at Claw and see if any of them would be a good fit.
For all I know, they are entirely redundant. But if I were to put them
in Claw, it would be with the same license (GMGPL) as the rest.
There's no point in confusing things with multiple licenses.

As for making it into the full Claw, frankly that's for you to care
about, not me. I will continue to not care about it as long as its not
Free Software, or I don't work for a company that has purchased a
license to it. You could of couse offer me a bri^H^H^Hinducement to
allow you to relicense my stuff with something proprietary. :-) 
However, I suspect your lawyers would tell you that putting GMGPL-ed
packages into the full proprietary Claw won't prevent you from using
whatever license you like for the rest of Claw. So, sadly, I also
suspect no "inducement" will be forthcomming. :-)

-- 
T.E.D. 
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

Re: ANN: GMGPL Claw Page

[Robert Dewar]

dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) wrote in message news:<4519e058.0204300549.121a62db@posting.google.com>...
> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message news:<ucrar97otkuhde@corp.supernews.com>...

> However, I suspect your lawyers would tell you that putting GMGPL-ed
> packages into the full proprietary Claw won't prevent you from using
> whatever license you like for the rest of Claw. So, sadly, I also
> suspect no "inducement" will be forthcomming. :-)

If your lawyers tell you this, they may be misleading. The GMGPL
exception clause applies ONLY to bound executables. If you distributed
a library with
aggregated components you might still have problems. Certainly you
would have
to distribute full sources of the GMGPL components, and probably you
should
make sure that they are well separated. You had better make very sure
your
lawyers know what they are doing if you attempt this kind of
on-the-edge
approach. What I would do in this case is to distribute my stuff, and
simply point to where useful related components can be obtained --
well
actually it is not what I would do -- I would not get into the POTS
(proprietary off the shelf) software business in the first place :-)
:-)

Robert Dewar

Re: ANN: GMGPL Claw Page

[tmoran]

>As for making it into the full Claw, frankly that's for you to care
>about, not me. I will continue to not care about it as long as its not
>Free Software, or I don't work for a company that has purchased a
  If your code made it into full Claw, it would help all users of
Claw, ie, a portion of the Ada community, and thus help Ada.
You don't care?  Yes, it might subtract some money from those
users and transfer it to RR Software, but nearly all software is
worth *much* more to its users than the price they paid for it.
Think of the number of programs you've bought that weren't worth
what you paid, and total up the dollars.  Now think of the ones
that were worth it, and saved you time etc worth hundreds of times
what the program cost.  I suspect you've made out rather well.
The same calculation applies to users of (your contribution to) Claw.

> You could of couse offer me a bri^H^H^Hinducement to
> allow you to relicense my stuff with something proprietary. :-)
  It's usually called a royalty, or pay, rather than a bribe,
and it's common and above board.  To be able to do it, of course,
RR would have to get some money from users of (enhanced) Claw.