I'd like to mention, too, that reinventing the wheel often has advantages. Sometimes it's in the process of reinventing it that you realize that the versions that exist could be improved on, and ownership does give you control.
Though google code and google groups may be just the ticket today, my feeling is that in the last 5 years, IDE's for web interfaces have caught up to the IDE's for traditional programming, but that the total feature set for authoring user interfaces with them have stagnated and will continue to do so without some experimentation from os developers. Think of how similar the flash authoring tool is today to what it was in 2000. With Red5 on the not too distant horizon, a lot of core problems with the flash player fixed, development made easier, and the fact that a lot of flash developers are good ui designers and coders, I predict that that a new crop of online user interface IDE's will start cropping up and that a lot of experimentation will occur with online colaborative authoring tools. Think of how many frameworks have been popping up in the last 3 years, in my thinking, every framework concept should be paired with the user interface of an ide so that a designer, by using what is there in front of him or her, is naturally led along to do what the framework wants him or her to do from what is visually on the page. User interfaces are great places to type in one word, for example, and have a set of framework objects and events generated for you in the code that follow the convention. If I'm right and in the next 5 years we're going to see a lot of folk wanting to have a red5 chat and collaborative code and animation editing tools it would be of great benefit to have control over the api to commit changes to subversion. Whether using google or osflash or setting up ones own server environment to do this, control over the api may be of great benefit in this and is worth keeping in mind when deciding what direction to go in. Just my thoughts for any trivia buffs out there, -Cort On 5/6/07, Nicolas Cannasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi guys, > > Quite simply, the reason for this development is this: If you're going > to do something, do it right. If we're going to host projects on > OSFlash, it needs automatic signup and it needs an online > administrator so that project leaders can add users, etc. That's the > way to do it right. Either that, or we don't host projects and mailing > lists. The current system of manual signups just isn't working and > it's not fair to people who want to host projects on OSFlash. Hi Aral, Sure, I understand what you mean here. But my point was that "doing it right" would require a lot more investement than just a automatic signup and management script. When you look at the quality and stability of free services such as Google Code, I can't help thinking that OSFlash should focus on what we're best at, and not try to build a service that will not give its users enough satisfaction compared to existing ones. Or else, if you want to provide the same level of features, it requires a lot more work and investement. I don't think it would be a bad idea to move hosting to Google Code, that would help small projects to get listed easily, simply by setting a "osflash" tag for example. The tag system itself it very good to find the projects by topics of interest, and working on the OSFlash site could be for example to retreive all "osflash" tagged projects and automaticaly generate the corresponding project page on OSFlash.org, for instance. Best, Nicolas _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
_______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
