Re: Time to rewrite dpkg IN IDL! :)
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 08:26:00AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Besides, any advantage in a nice OO design is lost by implementing it in C++! There is no need to do it in C++. My whole point is that I think an OO methodology would work well in this case simply due to the maintainability factor. gasp We could do it in .ADA!/gasp daniel
Re: Time to rewrite dpkg IN IDL! :)
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 01:20:20AM -0700, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote: Argo-UML. It's a UML design tool, designed to export Java; however, its nature makes it useful for any (distributed or otherwise) OO design project. I don't have a URL with me. http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/arch/uml/index.html found that on freshmeat. daniel
Re: Time to rewrite dpkg IN IDL! :)
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 02:50:38AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: I think an interesting approach would be to use CORBA. Make dpkg into a networkable server for polymorphic package objects! G'wan, I dare ya! :-) I don't see why not. Software is becomming more and more complex, people are expecting more and more out of it. The more modern and advanced things Debian can tout, the cooler we'll look. I don't have any experience in industry working with OO, but I have a little knowledge from what I work on at uni. A proper OO approach could produce a highly maintainable and extensible (and non-language specific) design that could be implemented easily enough in _many_ languages. There are a few OO tools (I'm thinking Rational Rose in particular) that can do code generation from UML work, which could mean that we could decide on a design before decending to our baser instincts to argue about what language it should be implemented in :) daniel
Re: Time to rewrite dpkg IN IDL! :)
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:44:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Speaking of baser instincts, Rationale Rose isn't free software, is it? Are there any nice (or even not-nice) OO design tools that are? No unfortunatley it isnt. There is a solaris version, which is a bad port of the win32 version, and the win32 version doesn't run under wine. I have found dia useful, but only from a diagram drawing point of view, unlike Rose which does all the extra bits as well. daniel
Re: Time to rewrite dpkg IN IDL! :)
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 09:14:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: How about it's complete overkill? I don't think so. Yes you can write maintainable code with plain C, but with the number of developers moving in and out of Debian, I think that a decent OO approach for core software could make it more maintainable for _everyone_. I often feel that I'd like to help contribute code to some things, but, not being an overly confident programmer, I am daunted by code that takes a long time to understand. I personally find OO design much easier to follow. This is personal preference however. I don't see anything in the Debian packaging system which fits OO very well at all. We have just one type of package; there are no special sub-types, for example. Perhaps there should be then? After the little work I've done (yes, and _you_ know just how much Hamish :P), I do see advantages behind the OO approach. Besides, as I said, at this stage, do the analysis, not the coding. It can always be scrapped if it looks like it would be pointless, but I'd like to see some non-emotive reasons not to even _consider_ it. daniel
ITP: squirm
Squirm is a URL redirector for squid. It provides a fast means for squid to modify URLs according to a set rule that the administrator applies. It is useful for things like a) redirecting requests for common files to internal cached copies b) restricting access to URLS and redirecting them to some other place (a warning message for instance) c) (and this is what I mostly use it for) redirecting things like banners and ads to some other place. daniel
Re: ITP: squirm
On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 09:10:54AM +1000, Daniel James Patterson wrote: Squirm is a URL redirector for squid. It provides a fast means for squid to modify URLs according to a set rule that the administrator applies. Oh, I forgot to mention that it's under the GPL and you can look at it at: http://www.senet.com.au/squirm/ daniel
Re: KDE gone, Linux next ?
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 01:00:52PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: This won't be the case for regular machines. It might be the case for boxes that use crappy hardware where the manufacturer holds back the specs and doesn't allow development of free drivers. I can picture manufacturers who _would_ have released specs no longer doing so because they can write their own. Knowing some of those cruddy el-cheapo places write pretty bad windows drivers, what can we expect from them with linux? daniel Keep the kernel free!
