On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 09:17:19AM -0400, Matt Cashner wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Rocco Caputo wrote:
>
> > fruitless without Uri's blessing.
>
> sure it would be. we'd have the niftiness of stem (which does do some
> cool stuff) in poe. blessings or not, that's a pretty good goal.
"Fruitless" may not have been the right word. How about
"frustrating"? Importing stem niftiness into poe might be fun, but it
has a couple potential problems:
Someone would have to track stem's changes and keep poe up to date.
Bleah! Don't let it be me.
There may be scars where the two systems are attached. Consider
postbacks and the boundaries between poe and Gtk or Tk. While you're
considering that, try to find a cleaner solution. :)
Philip seems to be taking a different approach, which has some
plusses. Write an object system for poe, and design stem
compatibility into it. That smooths over the scars between paradigms
and reduces the amount of project tracking needed. If he's careful,
his object system will cooperate with the one I prototyped in 1998.
A third route is to port stem to poe's event loop. "Fruitless" would
be a good word to describe a poe/stem (post'em?) hybrid if Uri won't
accept it. Trying to maintain it anyway brings us back to
"frustrating".
> > I don't think he'd be too keen on
> > it: he was dead set against the idea when I suggested it a year or two
> > ago.
>
> a few words brought this back towards a sensible middle. poe on nt.
> stem doesnt work on nt. poe does. poe works most anywhere, iirc.
> that's a huge gain for stem. esp if we're doing the coding and uri
> isnt paying us :)
This implies that a stem/poe (stempo?) hybrid will be written and
accepted, but that begs two questions:
A hybrid system seems important for Stem Systems' flagship product.
Why won't he be working on it?
Essentially you'll be porting his product to Windows/NT. Why won't he
compensate you for your time?
-- Rocco Caputo / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / poe.perl.org / poe.sourceforge.net
