My further $.02. As Pete suggests, the sub-project in question seems to be a sub-kernel with enough function to support separate packages, each sup- porting a different language. This sub-kernel happens to be written in C++. How about something like sub-kernel then, or micro-kernel, or some such name aluding to the above observation, assuming people agree with it ;-)
On 1/23/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was wondering whether we should package a Tuscany C++ kernel, which is the core runtime and cpp language extension, and have a separate package for scripting extensions ?? I'm not sure I like "Native" On 23/01/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just my 2 cents, going with Tuscany Native, still does not address the > other > languages like Phyton, Ruby, etc ? does it ? > > If it doesn't, I'd stick with Tuscany C++. > > On 1/23/07, Oisin Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > My +1 is for "Tuscany Native" > > > > I wonder what all the Tuscany natives in Italy would think ;) > > > > >> [] keep the old name (Tuscany C++) > > > > This would get my vote. > > > > --oh > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Luciano Resende > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > > -- Pete
