I think the best solution may be to make the toolserver's existing support for Mono more widely known, and encourage our .NET gurus to take a look. :) Mono should be source- and even binary- compatible with much existing wiki-related .NET code, as long as it doesn't rely on stuff like the IE WebBrowser control; most of AWB's WikiFunctions.dll seems to function for example. The developers of AWB, Huggle, etc. might be able to whip up some exciting stuff for the toolserver that builds on their existing codebases.
-Krimpet On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 12:32 -0500, Larry Pieniazek wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: River Tarnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:22 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Toolserver-l] Windows back on track? > > > > Larry Pieniazek: > > > > LP> River asked for technical only, I think. > > > > LP> I see some people going down the "windows sucks" path... and some > > LP> going down the "how do we license" path. Both seem > > premature to me > > LP> (valid for later) > > > > yes, quite... any discussion of implementation is going to be > > contentious. i was hoping to avoid that until there's > > actually a clear need for it. > > It is not clear there is a need yet... there may well not be. (if I were > betting, I'd bet that way, regardless of how nifty some client guis on .net > might be, they're not relevant) > > But the tangents make it harder to tell. :) > > Larry Pieniazek > Hobby mail: Lar at Miltontrainworks dot com > > > _______________________________________________ > Toolserver-l mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l _______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
