Swazoo version 2.0

Hi,

Now that Sport has been created, published, ported to Squeak and made to
work with the PostgreSQL drivers and the Swazoo HTTP server, what need
to happen to get Swazoo v2.0 out the door?

Should I start the ball rolling by publishing 2 000 to the Cincom public
Store?

All the best,
        Bruce
--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/

Hi Bruce and others,

I just open an new development branch 1.1 which is just a republish of
current Swazoo 1.0. Now I'm looking at both 1.0 and your branch to see,
how we can merge them.

I see a first step just to merge or adapt parts which are related to
portability layer: those parts which use sockets, streams etc.

Next step are exceptions. After that Swazoo 1.1.x will use SPort fully.
At this point will also be a good time to stop and think about, how to
proceed.

Best regards
Janko


Bruce Badger wrote:
--
Janko Miv�ek
Svetovalec za informatiko
EraNova d.o.o.
Ljubljana, Slovenija
www.eranova.si
tel:  01 514 22 55
faks: 01 514 22 56
gsm: 031 674 565

Janko,

On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 21:16 +0100, Janko Mivšek wrote:
> I just open an new development branch 1.1 which is just a republish of
> current Swazoo 1.0. Now I'm looking at both 1.0 and your branch to see,
> how we can merge them.

o 1.0 (18 Nov 2005) -> 1.1.0 (7 Feb 2006).  No code changes.
o 0.9.102 (18 Nov 2005) -> 1.0. No code changes.

OpenSkills started work on the Swazoo HTTP server at version 0.9.76 (21
Apr 2003).  We have published many changes since then, the first of
which was 0.9.76-bb01 (2 Sept 2003) and the most recent is 0.9.76-bb73
(31 Jan 2006).

OpenSkills has put considerable effort into the Swazoo HTTP server, and
we have been very keen to see our work incorporated into the released
Swazoo.

We were dismayed, therefore, when our efforts were completely ignored
when version 1.0 was announced in November last year.  It was
particularly disappointing to read that one of the claims for 1.0 was
"portability", when this was one of the areas in which we had spent a
great deal of effort.  Compounding our disappointment was the fact that
we had been very open about what we had been doing and had posted to
this list as we made significant changes over these two years of work.

Since version 1.0 was announced I have had discussions with
"Misolin" (is that you, Janko?  I've never been sure) on IRC to work out
how to proceed.

I suggested that version 2.0 of the Swazoo HTTP server (just the HTTP
server, not the resource handling) should be based on the work done by
OpenSkills, and that any changes from 0.9.76 -> 1.0 should be merged
into that.  This seems to make sense since the delta between 0.9.76 and
the latest OpenSkills version is much greater (much more coding work has
been done) than between 0.9.76 and 1.0 ( and now the zero-change 1.1.0).

Misolin said that he was "not convinced" that the OpenSkills portability
work was appropriate for Swazoo version 2.0.  I asked what would
convince him.  In the end we agreed that I would brand the OpenSkills
portability layer as "Sport" and would port Sport and Swazoo to Squeak.
Misolin would port Sport to Dolphin.  We would do this by the end of
January.

OpenSkills has indeed re-branded our portability library as Sport and we
changed all of our systems to use the new class names.  We have released
Sport under the LGPL, and published it to the Cincom public Store
repository.

I have ported Sport to Squeak and tested that PostgreSQL driver and the
Swazoo HTTP server work in Squeak using Sport.  Just to be clear here -
the VW version of the PostgreSQL driver and the VW version of the Swazoo
HTTP server were simply filed out of VW and filed into Squeak, and they
worked ... because they use Sport.

All this work was completed by the end of January, as agreed.

No work has taken place on the Dolphin port AFAIK, other than a post to
the Dolphin news group.

Having done all the work with Sport and Squeak, I asked Misolin if he
was now convinced that Swazoo 2.0 should be based on the OpenSkills work
- he said he was.

Now, I suggest on this list that I publish 2.0 000 to get the ball
rolling on version 2.0 (note again that we ask *before* acting), and
what happens?  1.1.0 is published to the Cincom public Store, just a
simple re-publish of v1.0.

After all the work that OpenSkills has put into Swazoo.  After we have
gone so far out of our way to work to having our efforts be incorporated
in the released version ...

Could someone please explain what we need to do?  I need to know soon.
We are making some branding decisions and I want to know if I will be
telling people we use Swazoo, or some new project which was forked from
Swazoo two years ago.

And as for this ...

> I see a first step just to merge or adapt parts which are related to
> portability layer: those parts which use sockets, streams etc.

First step?  We've taken the first step.  And the second.  And jumped
the hurdle, and gone the extra mile.

> Next step are exceptions. After that Swazoo 1.1.x will use SPort fully.
> At this point will also be a good time to stop and think about, how to
> proceed.

"Think about how to proceed"?  I can't believe you wrote that - again.

Yours, in frustration,
        Bruce
--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/

I forward the following mail to this list because I've replied to
Bruce accidentally (thanks gmail web).

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bruce Badger <[hidden email]>
Date: 08-feb-2006 17:01
Subject: Re: [Swazoo-devel] Swazoo version 2.0
To: "Esteban A. Maringolo" <[hidden email]>


On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 16:03 -0300, Esteban A. Maringolo wrote:

> What are the additional features added to Swazoo by your/OpenSkills team?

These have all been noted on the Swazoo list, and of course in the
publishing comments in Store.

In short, many.  Have a look.  Just open a Published items browser, go
to the Swazoo bundle, select version 0.9.76, and start hitting the up
arrow and reading the comments.  Also you could look in the list archive
(but I don't know where that is ... do you?).

I fact, I would turn this question around and ask what features the
branch published to store by "mivsek" since 0.9.76 has.  Looking at the
very few versions in that branch that contain any code changes at all,
the most significant changes to the HTTP server seems to be a few small
changes taken from the work OpenSkills had already done - yet this,
essentially dead, branch was simply re-published as 1.0.   While our
active branch was totally ignored.

> I share the point of "Think about how to proceed", but with a vote on
> integrating all the existing additions, including yours, and Sport.

Had this point been made, say, a year ago, I'd say fair enough.

In fact this point *was* made some time ago and I *did* say fair enough.
Since then we have jumped through hoops to satisfy Misolin/Janko ...

... only to face "think about how to proceed" yet again.

The time for thinking how to proceed is passed.  We need a clear
commitment from the Swazoo project leadership (whom I understood to be
Misolin/Janko) ... and if it is not him/them then he/they have
perpetrated quite a deception IMO.

> That would be deserving a 2.0 release, IMVHO.

We think so.  Either that or it's own project name.

> Regards,

Likewise.  Sorry to be terse, but we are feeling a tad frustrated here.

Did you mean to post your message to the Swazoo list?  If so, please do
feel free to post this response there too.

All the best,
        Bruce
--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: 'Key at: http://pgp.mit.edu'

iD8DBQBD6k4SF1uP4b67kz8RAlLDAKC1ggofgoS0UCqlf7jWUs6poAZqhQCg5FeH
O07bS1U0ZRixEPc8v9zXqXo=
=n6HW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




--
Esteban A. Maringolo
[hidden email]