Charles Daminato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I've been working on this for some time - but since I'm not a 'programmer'
> per se, don't mind the terms I'm using. I expect full feedback on the
> list for this discussion - try to keep it pertinent instead of trying to
> get 'new' features added as part of the debate.
>
> Modular Client Code...
>
Charles,
While I think this is a great idea - and I mean that, I'm not just being
obsequious - I also think that you're mixing up your priorities. The most
important next step for OpenSRS should be to document the API completely,
from start to finish.
If the API is available, coders like myself and others will be able to build
clients in a multitude of languages. For instance, I would be able to code a
client in PHP, and build OpenSRS into my current systems with ease. Someone
else has mentioned that they'd like to do the same thing with Java.
I think this would be a good thing for OpenSRS - it means more people will be
able to "Plug and Play" OpenSRS into their website. And let's be honest, the
whole aim of OpenSRS is to get domains cheaper, and unless I'm very much
mistaken, the more users you get on the system, the cheaper the domains
should get.
And of course the ultimate aim comes to mind - taking a chunk out of NetSol's
business. They need to be punished for all the hurt they've caused... :)
Seriously though, I think that your proposal is a good idea, but I think that
it should be shelved until such time as the API is fully documented. When it
is, you'll have a hell of a lot more people who will work on the client(s)
for free, and who will implement your modular suggestion.
Finally, I should make it quite clear that I'm not just stating my opinion
and shagging off, secure in the knowledge that I'm right and you're wrong. If
there is a reason for the limited documentation, please state it. If there
isn't, please feel free to hand some of the work off to me - I'll help out as
best I can. As long as you don't mind getting docs in HTML. :)
adam
