[sword-devel] the release

[Daniel Blake]

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" <danblake@tcdr.com>
> To: <sword-devel@crosswire.org>
> 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
> > sword-devel@crosswire.org
> > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list
> sword-devel@crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>