socket and socketstream depend on D's I/O design.
Because there are many things depending on I/O else, I think that the
importance of the I/O is high.
--
SHOO
(2010/11/16 6:42), Sean Kelly wrote:
These are the modules that couldn't be moved to the Boost license for one
reason or another. They should all be removed or replaced:
base64 - Chris Miller
loader - Matthew Wilson
md5 - RSA Data Security
openrj - Matthew Wilson
perf - Matthew Wilson
socket - Chris Miller
socketstream - Chris Miller
stream - Pavel Minayev
On Nov 14, 2010, at 12:05 AM, SHOO wrote:
I think that it is important that we prioritize our to-do list.
Therefore I think that firstly we should make a list. Next, it is necessary for
us to clarify the problem that each item has.
I show following list the thing which I hit on:
- std.stream, I/O (replace, enhance)
- std.xml (replace?)
- std.json (replace?)
- std.datetime (replace, enhance)
- scope/RAII (replace, enhance)
- std.scoket / asio (replace)
- std.event (enhance)
- std.serialize (enhance)
- documents (enhance)
- std.process (enhance)
- std.path, std.file (enhance)
- pure (apply)
- nothrow (apply)
- @safe/@trusted/@system (apply)
- shared (enhance, bug fix)
- GC (enhance)
- std.container (enhance)
- opDollars (enhance, apply)
- and some voted bugs (bug fix)
(I only enumerate of the list at this stage, and omit the detailed explanation.)
Are there items else?
--
SHOO
(2010/11/14 14:52), Jonathan M Davis wrote:
We have several modules in Phobos which are supposedly going to be deprecated in
favor of better implementations (std.stream, std.xml, std.json, etc). As I
understand it, this is primarily because the code isn't being maintained, is
poorly designed for D2 (possibly because it isn't range-centric or just hasn't
been updated with D2-only features), and/or lacks a maintainer/champion. In
addition to that, there's various types of functionality which should probably
be in Phobos but haven't been done yet.
The Phobos developers only have so much time on their hands, and some portion of
this kind of work is going to need to be done by people who are not currently on
the Phobos team. That, and we seem to be adopting the idea that the ideal
situation is for each module to have a "champion" of sorts who is behind the
module, working to fix bugs on it and make it better.
So, I was wondering if what we should do is figure out what some of the modules
are that we want in Phobos - and in particular the ones currently in Phobos
which need to be overhauled - and then post on the main D list looking for
people willing to take them on. We don't want to a flood of code that needs to
be
reviewed for inclusion in Phobos, but if we want to get a lot of this stuff
done,
we need more people working on it - particularly people who are really looking
to focus on it and champion it.
So, I'm suggesting that we identify the top priority module which aren't likely
to be done by Phobos developers any time soon and see if we can get others in
the D community to do them. In particular, it's a problem that we have several
modules which we intend to replace. The longer that we wait, the more code that
will be written using the old modules, and the more code which will break when
they get replaced.
- Jonathan M Davis
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
