First, of all, good luck. This is a big endeavour, and if you feel you can be successful we should applaud you for your enthusiasm. A little arrogance comes we the territory I think (but you did make me cringe a little).
On Nov 30, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Peter Michaux wrote: > > Hi Deco, > > On 11/30/06, Deco Rior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> So... if Peter really wants to make his mark, can he at least try to >> keep the API the same or compatible with Prototype. > > The API is similar in some places but can't stay the same. I am > writing a namespaced library. Appreciate the NameSpace. That is easy to search and replace. But don't expect us to require complex regex to make the transfer, and if you do then supply the conversion scripts. Most migration technologies fail, not because of the feature vs. feature comparison, but because the barrier to migrate is too high. > > For example, > > new Insertion.Bottom(id, html) > > becomes > > FORK.Mutate.insertBottom(id, html) > > >> After over 12 months of investment, the barrier to migrate with a >> major code change to another library would be daunting. > > Fork probably isn't ready yet for this situation but eventually I > think the work would be worth it. Um...how big an app do you think we have? Any major code change is very costly, mostly in QA. We essentially are about 80% through our rewrite based on AJAX. A major code change is where we cannot simply script the code, and requires us to potentially touch each file. You should have seen the agony we went through in making the decision to get away from WebObjects! > > >> In any case >> it would need to be something with some muscle behind it (by that I >> mean, contributers, funding, third-party certification). > > Perhaps one day. Not many open source software projects start with > this much muscle. And you cannot build a mission critical solution on a startup open- source. Try and get SAS 70 certification on libraries with version 0.2a! > > >> No matter how good the code is, unless I have some degree of >> certainty that the next version of IE will not break it we cannot >> commit. > > I too need this code to work with IE 7. Just an example...the point is that a library that is not maintained because of one key developer is a risk. In many ways this has made us look at DOJO, since SUN, IBM, and MICROSOFT are all vested heavily. Say what you want about the code, but the bottom line is that we can do everything we need to do even though it is not elegant. It is funny, PHP kinda of falls into the same category ;-) Plus we use lasso which has its advantages also. One dumb question...what is there to stop someone getting a branch of prototype source and going off and making a better version? If Sam doesn't have time, that is okay...Do we need a Linus? > > > Peter > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
