Thank you for your comments David. Your point is well taken, I will try to word things better in the future. I am sorry that my post came across a pressuring.
For me to create a dll will be a long road. I am just learning VB at this point. Even after I get proficient with VB, I still won't be in a position to create the dll for Sword because it is coded in C++? Programming in C++ is a long term goal that I have, but at this point coding isn't one of the ways I can help Sword. I think I will stick to praying more and speaking up less. Daniel Blake > Daniel, > Nothing stops you from creating a .dll for sword, it is, I am sure, a > welcome contribution and I can see you are trying to think through the > implications of a .dll. But our resources are thin enough already we cannot > simply begin a new project. This is where the beauty of Open Source Software > comes into play, you have an itch, you can scratch it and all others can > benefit from it. That is pretty much the norm in the Open Source world. I > know first hand that Troy spends more time scratching everyone elses itch, > that he rarely gets to scratch his own. Please if you have suggestions > great! But if you feel a need to pressure the team perhaps you should > consider contributing some action to your suggestions. > David > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Blake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 11:11 AM > Subject: RE: [sword-devel] the release > > > > Sorry it took so long for me to reply but I've been busy and I wanted to > > double-check my facts before I wrote back. > > > > There is, in fact, a DLL that was created. It is version 1.5.4a . I was > sure > > that I had downloaded one from the site before so I searched my server and > > found this file: sworddll-1.5.4a.zip > > > > As to the concern of not maintaining backwards compatibility I would > suggest > > a naming scheme for the DLL that had the version in the name > > "sword154a.dll", as an example. This way anyone writing a program would > > specify which DLL their program was written for. With this naming > > convention, having multiple DLLs on the same machine wouldn't cause any > > problems of compatibility and it wouldn't be much of a burden to people's > > storage space either. > > > > I want to preface my next thought with saying I am not trying to start a > > flame or sound know it all-ish. Keeping this in mind, I want to remind the > > people of this list what The Sword Projects MAIN purpose is: Here is the > > quote from the website. > > > > The SWORD Project is the CrossWire Bible Society's free Bible software > > project. Its purpose is to create cross-platform open-source tools, > covered > > by the GNU General Public License, that allow programmers and Bible > > societies to write new Bible software more quickly and easily. Its > secondary > > purpose is to amass a library of Bibles and other Scripture-related texts > > that can be used by all SWORD Project-based software. > > > > Our Statement of Purpose says that our first purpose is to create The > Sword > > Project for quick and easy software development. Couldn't quick and easy > be > > interpreted as Rapid Application Development (RAD)? The Statement of > > Purpose says our SECONDARY purpose is to amass a library of modules for > use > > with the Sword Engine. > > > > As someone who is just learning to program my main contribution to this > > project is first prayer and second testing and suggestions. It is not my > > intention to step on toes or to preach, but if creating RAD Tools is the > > main purpose of this project then I don't see how we could stay away from > > creating DLLs or OCXs. > > > > I would just ask that we do an inventory of ourselves as a project to see > if > > we are keeping the balance of what was originally intended. > > > > 1) Create the tools. > > 2) Amass/create the libraries. > > > > Thank you for taking the time to read this long and opinionated post. > > Please see that my heart is to see the project go far and not to cause > > division. > > > > Daniel Blake > > > > > > > Since we don't maintain any compatability between library releases, this > > > is a bad idea. If we start releasing sword.dll's, everything will break > > > between versions. > > > > > > Besides which, no Sword DLL exists, it would be a lot of work to create > > > & document one that works, etc. > > > > > > If you or someone else really feels like working on this project, we can > > > consider it for inclusion with 1.5.7. > > > > > > --Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest that before you release, please make a Sword > > > > Dynamic Link Library and distribute it, so that others can > > > > use it in VB, VC and Delphi. > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > _______________________________________________ > > sword-devel mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > sword-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
