FWIW, I was shocked by the tone of your statement as well. Not so much by any misleading or such. Rather, it was more in the way that I'm shocked by the manner that, in the US companies can discuss differences with other products in their advertisements.

Had you also 'advertised' FOray in the same way you promoted Defoe, it might've taken a bit of the tone down (I don't know--you didn't mention FOray so I don't *know* how it would've come off).

In any case, as I suspect is true for with the rest of the FOP team, I am grateful to your continued contributions to the FOP project, and I hope your contribution will continue.

Web Maestro Clay

On Jan 17, 2005, at 3:07 AM, Peter B. West wrote:

Do you disagree with the assessment? Clearly people might, but I didn't say anything I don't believe is the truth about the state of FOP. If it is true, isn't it fair to let newcomers know the state of play? Finn has already talked about a radically different approach in order to solve the large files problem, and I'm sure he will present you with a swag of patches to do just that at some time in the future. I just hope he doesn't do it so soon as to render Defoe moot. One of its underlying features will be what is effectively a stream parsing mechanism. It's acceptance, which I take to be a fait accompli, there being no other design contenders, will be particularly galling for me, in light of the the blanket refusal to consider it when I proposed it, as I still do.

I think I have earned the right to speak my mind on these issues.


Jeremias Maerki wrote:
it's ok if you make other people aware of your project but the way you
did that in your last post disturbs me. We know that you disagree with
FOP's approach, but I would have preferred a more constructive form of
making Mark aware of Defoe. Maybe I'm overreacting...

Web Maestro Clay -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - <> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness. - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet

Reply via email to