You see this happen though all the time with other software.

Media players don't need to have 10 ways to decode wav files, but they do.
In fact, they also tend to abstract so that people can switch from the open
source LAME mp3 decoder to a different possibly commercial one, or one
developed in another country.  In other words, license incompatability.

Or Apache MPMs, all do the same thing (serve pages) but do things different
ways. None of this is nuclear simulation software, all of it is abstacted.

What is the design goal? Most folks aren't going to use the new scanner
anyways, unless it becomes apparent it is superior in which case they will,
classic open source. A design goal of choice without harm seems reasonable.
And when the next "new and improved" scanner comes along, giving it a whirl
will be easy...

I confess to knowing nothing about licenses, but looking at the new scanner
the license seems very open?


-----Original Message-----
From: Zeev Suraski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 5:10 PM
To: August Zajonc
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [UPDATE] NGScan

At 23:57 9/7/2001, August Zajonc wrote:
>Why not have an abstraction? It would seem this would allow scanners with
>different licenses to co-exist, and more to the point there's an immediate
>technical win here, with code already written.

Allowing scanners with different licenses to co-exist isn't a very viable
design goal.
If it was a piece of absolutely necessary piece, plus it was as complicated
as nuclear simulation software, adding this workaround might have been
justified.  However, it's not all that necessary (it is necessary, in the
long run) and it's also not very complex.
With the eye in the foot metaphor I didn't mean that it would make it
difficult to talk, just that it's not where it belongs.  For that matter,
you could place it on the palm of your hand.


PHP Development Mailing List <>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to