On 1/30/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip] Simon Nash wrote: > A repackaging into a kernel and language extensions as suggested by > Pete, Ignacio, and Jeremy seems like a good direction. We'll still > have to find a name for the (native, C++, scripting, ???) kernel, > though. And we'll have to decide what kind of distribution bundling > is helpful for our users. Jeremy's suggestion of combining related > pieces from the "Java" and "C++" worlds seems like a good approach. > > I am not sure why we would put the cpp language extension into the > kernel, as suggested by Pete. Is this because it is needed by all > other extensions that support scripting languages? > > Simon > After having thought about various other code names, I'm starting to like "native". I am +1 with separating a kernel from the extensions. The CPP source tree and build structure already have this separation anyway. The kernel does not depend on the C++ component type support extension so I don't think that it should include that extension. I also like Jeremy's suggestion of combining the current java/ruby and cpp/ruby into a Ruby top level module containing the code to support both Jruby/Java and the Ruby native interpreter and a shared set of samples. I think that the same idea will work well for other Scripting component types (Python, Javascript etc.) and will help us ensure consistency across runtimes. I propose to go even further and generalize this idea to bindings (WS binding, REST binding, an AMQP/Qpid binding may be a good candidate too) and other component types as well. I would like to stage some of these changes as they will generate significant work to adjust all the build files etc. I'd suggest to start changing the terminology (core to kernel, C++ to native) and see how we can share some samples, but attack the refactoring of the source trees and the build system later, after the C++/native M3 release. Thoughts? -- Jean-Sebastien --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] All of this refactoring sounds interesting and many systems distribute a
core/kernel and then optionally allow you to download extensions, PHP for example. I should say that in the PHP case poplar extensions find their way into the kernel/core over time once they have proved their worth because people don't particularly like downloading extensions. As Jean-Sebastien pointed out this separation already exists in the make system so the user can choose precisely which bits to build once the source distro has been downloaded. In the case of the binary distro I think the case will be that the system only picks up those extensions that you reference in SCDL so that fact that you have installed all of them is not an issue given the number of extensions we have now. I would therefore suggest that the extra complexity of delivering physically separate tars for extensions and kernel is not required for M3 particularly because Jeremy's ideas are interesting and may lead to rehashing the details of how this is done for M4 anyhow. Simon
