Ray,
Wouldn't it be easy enough to provide sub-sections on the site for mods
other than "global bug fixes"? I can see the real value of providing
general bug fixes/mods for everyone, but I think there is also a lot of
value in allowing people to post (and to download) mods which may not be
appropriate for everyone. For example, if someone implements code changes
to take advantage of new CF5 functionality, why shouldn't that be available
on the SpectraSource site? It would then be a matter of the developer
nominating which platform, database, or software versions are required or
targeted for these changes. Or perhaps there would be a mod to some
cfa_container code which improves performance, but which isn't appropriate
if the site uses personalisation (just for example). Submitters would just
need to provide specific information about what environment and uses are
appropriate for the mod.
I think it would be valuable to provide access to some of these
situation-specific mods, probably in a separate part of the site. Of
course, the scope of these mods should still remain modest, and
commercial/paid-for mods should remain in the Developer's Exchange. I don't
imagine that there will be much activity in DevEx for Spectra, given it's
status/perception as a "winding-down" product - but judging by the responses
on this list, and apparent expectations, the SpectraSource site would be a
great avenue for this kind of "added-value".
Thoughts?
Nathan Wheat
Technical Sales Consultant
Firmware Design
Phone: 0401 148 989
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.firmware.com.au
Are you a Web Developer or Designer?
Looking for an edge? If so, check out Web Design 2001
Go to the link Below to find out more & register
<http://wd2001.firmware.com.au/ft>
-----Original Message-----
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 13 July 2001 4:43 AM
To: Spectra-Talk
Subject: RE: SpectraSource is now live
I think, perhaps, we are getting a bit confused. Spectra is not open source
per se, it's Community Source. This means that Macromedia still has say over
how things go. So, for example, if you have a mod that uses stored
procedures in the coapi, but was only for SQL Server, we wouldn't release
that since it makes the product, as a whole, unusuable for non-SQL Server
platforms. Your mod may be awesome, may be 100 times faster then the current
release, but we will not support it from our site.
Those kind of mods are fine for the Developer Exchange, but again, we don't
want to fork the core code into multiple versions. We have to be very
careful in maintaining the integrity of the code. This doesn't mean that we
have a 'size limit' of any kind for mods, but in general, changes will be
imcremental, not global.
Does this make things a bit clearer? You (and by you I mean the Development
Community) can still contribute to the product. Shoot, you guys/gals have
already done so with the fixes you have provided since the 1.0 release. This
is really no different then the past, except now you have an easier way to
do so. If you have no qualms about sending a solution to spectra-talk or the
Forums, then you should have no qualms doing so on spectrasource site.
RC
> Ray -
>
> I guess I am confused as to the purpose of the SpectraSource site. I read
> on the home
> page that:
>
> "Community Source allows the entire Macromedia Spectra community to
> contribute
> to the product's direction and development"
>
> But then I see from the traffic on the list here that we only have a
> mechanism for
> dealing with "1-3 line fixes and mods" which seems at odds for
> dealing with
> "direction"
> of Spectra.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/spectra_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
