Tom, I'll take a small issue with your: > A > quick look at all the modules in CVS suggests that this is the best way to > contribute code, not by hacking on the core.
I think that's an effect, not a cause. My company stopped submitting changes well before I came to it (2003) because the core changes it needed were not acted on (i.e., accepted). We still don't believe that: * Conns should belong to a single thread * Authentication and authorization belong in the same module * A deployment will only use one authentication protocol (Ns_ConnReturnUnauthorized) * System logging shouldn't have hooks for external system log consolidation (syslog, mod_log_spread...) At least the first of those got some action in 4.x, but we've still had to modify the core and drivers to get our connection count up where we want it on Windows (>10000 established sockets; that may help folks understand why 1 thread == 1 socket doesn't work well for us). (I'm aware OpenACS has a fine set of workarounds (sorry, modules and deployment conventions) for the second and third problem, but I can't use 'em (and don't read the source for 'em) since it's GPL'ed.) But we don't submit our changes, because going through the process you suggest (which I admit, we use an abbreviated form of internally) would double our technical management overhead, and have us working on use cases we frankly don't ever deal with (e.g., virtual hosting). Would we take that overhead if our developers didn't think they'd end up spending as much time arguing (sorry, "motivating their changes") with folks who won't affect our bottom line as they do with their colleagues & customers? I don't know; I think we'd be more likely to. I second your thought that setting direction would be good. But I find it very easy to hear your input as "nullity is a good direction". Stability has its costs as well as its benefits -- -- ReC -----Original Message----- From: AOLserver Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Jackson Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 4:52 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AOLSERVER] Minor facelift to aolserver.com On Tuesday 08 April 2008 13:52, Rick Cobb wrote: > Well, it's certainly compliant :-), but I suspect Mr. Jackson would object. > If there's one thing aolserver ain't, it's "beta". Well, at least he has a goal to achieve, and once we attract 'people' who are interested in developing beta grade software, we will surely get there very quickly. A cute logo isn't going to attract the level of developer who would be able to maintain AOLserver, much less provide a useful enhancement. But like I said: why not figure out what needs to be done...first. IMHO, by advertising the stability of the AOLserver API, you will attract users who would otherwise be correctly scared off by constant hacking. Another thing which might attract interest is if our current community members would write a brief application note explaining how they use AOLserver, and why they chose it over other potential platforms. Additionally, we could catalog sites known to run on AOLserver. My guess is that developers who have similar interests and motivations or similar problem solving skills as current community members will be attracted to the community. Given the fact that there have been only a handfull of CVS commits in the last year, I would venture to guess that most community members are happy with the current codebase, and that means that new community members will probably be looking for a mature project which allows them to focus on their own application, at least at first. Then, they may contribute a module which extends AOLserver. A quick look at all the modules in CVS suggests that this is the best way to contribute code, not by hacking on the core. Change for the sake of change will scare off any sane developer, we don't charge for upgrades, please remember this fact. tom jackson -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
