On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:30 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sage-devel - the idea is that sage-edu rolls up a number of nice > (initially optional) spkgs that get merged into Sage as they mature. > The same applies to any extra code written by sage-edu. sage-edu > should function as a test bed for various bits and pieces of code like > the interactive widgets, which the research people have little > interest in. I doubt "you guys" want to do your own releases, so sage- > edu works as upstream, somewhat like currently the sage-combinat > people do. It is my opinion that sage-edu should be a separate entity from sage-devel and that the main connection between the code that sage-edu creates/distributes and the Sage computation engine should be through a well-designed API similar to what Mathematica has: http://www.outbacksoftware.com/mathematica/mathlink-jlink.html Since Sage takes inspiration from Mathematica in so many other areas, my thought is that using mathlink as a starting point for what a Sage API should look like would make sense too. Now to spkgs. As the person who created the JMOL-src package, I don't want to have the 3rd party applets that sage-edu makes available to be forced to be distributed in source code form. Beyond this, sage-edu might eventually make dozens of education-oriented applets available and, if sage-devel does not want to deal with an education-oriented applet like GeoGebra, I don't see why it would have any interest in including education-oriented applets in Sage at all. If sage-edu is a separate entity from sage-devel, it will also need to have its own source code repository and releases. > > 2) Would sage-devel be willing to expose a standard API that can be > > used to access the Sage calculation engine? > > I doubt that is really needed. If somebody wants to implement some > mathml abstraction layer (as Joel suggested below) that would be fine, What is needed is something like Mathematica's mathlink, not a mathml layer. Sage needs an API like this for the same reason that Mathematica needs one. > but while in the past William has thought about splitting off the > notebook as its own project I am not seeing that happening any time > soon. Why not? The notebook's developers have stated multiple times that they would much rather do math-oriented development instead of work on the notebook. In the mean time, the current number of notebook tickets has reached 70. Ted --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
