[shell-coding] Re: [Common Elements] Just a thought
From: "Mark Belles" <mrbelles@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <shell-coding@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:45:37 -0500
lol, ya i hear the rewrite thing, i am just finishing my second major release
of my shell. so that is understandable. The COM stuff is definitely a pain in
my eyes. some is necessary like you say, but i'd rather have pure callbacks or
something, without the com based interfaces. i dunno, some days i love it, and
others i hate it.
----- Original Message -----
From: Brandon Sneed
To: shell-coding@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 12:33 PM
Subject: [shell-coding] Re: [Common Elements] Just a thought
You're talking to a bunch of people who have worked on a shell that's been
practically rewritten 10 times. ;) hehe.
couldn't help it.
anyway.. while i do agree 100% with what everyone's been talking about via a
common core.., i don't think a 90% COM solution (ie: what i think raptor to be)
is the answer.. at the same time, i do realize that for some things its a
necessary evil. Its overly complex, and writing all the stuff on your own at
this point seems to be a quicker shot to point B than implementing raptor. :/
brandon
----- Original Message -----
From: Donelle Sanders
To: shell-coding@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 8:54 AM
Subject: [shell-coding] Re: [Common Elements] Just a thought
I don't think raptor is a solution, Im using raptor because I liked the
idea and I want to continue on with it. Yes rewrites would have to be made to
support this idea but with any change like this, rewrites are going to happen
regardless. I don't expect people to jump on the bandwagon with me Im just
doing what I love to do and those that are interested can follow. While we are
on the subject I invented a sort of "patch" for certain shells to interact with
raptor with having to change "much" of there current implementations. This
service is I call "Connectors" are more less proxies or a gateway that knows
how to talk to say "Shell A" and raptor. I thought is would be facinating to
see "Shell A" get information seemlessly as if it implemented the require
interfaces for raptor. It was just an experiment that I was trying out for
geoshell r4.9 , I had gotten the idea from ximian gnome's connector for ms
exchange server. But anyhoo, I do appr eciate your opinion ;-) . (I'm glad
somebody is thinking in the same direction as I), and I know this is hobby for
most people but to me doing this is like the greatest gift God has given me and
thats to code.
-Matrice(64)
>From: Kevin Schaffer
>Reply-To: shell-coding@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: shell-coding@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [shell-coding] Re: [Common Elements] Just a thought
>Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:33:38 -0400
>
>I agree completely. It is my hope that this mailing list will help
>to bring
>about better cooperation between shell developers and better
>integration
>between shells. Although you didn't mention it specifically, based
>on your
>last post I assume your solution would be Raptor, or something
>similar;
>however, Raptor is not the solution. Raptor went about it the wrong
>way.
>Shells have to be completely redesigned to work with Raptor and that
>is
>why it failed. I feel the best way to achieve better shell unity is
>to do it
>incrementally and in a way that won't require major rewrites of
>existing
>code.
>
>--
>Kevin Schaffer
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Subscription options and archive:
>http://www.freelists.org/list/shell-coding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here
__________________________________________________ Subscription options and
archive: http://www.freelists.org/list/shell-coding
