Re: CLX and common-lisp.net

> Well, I'd have thought the first step would be to make your patches
> public: in the darcs model of distribution, I think that's done by
> setting up a publically-accessible darcs repository (with "darcs push"
> to your webspace).  Then those patches can be pulled by both your
> users (or beta testers) and those making releases.

This is finally done. I've set up a repository from which you can pull
my changes at

  http://opensource.franz.com/clx/

I redid the work I did previously so that all the allegrocl specific
code is in dep-allegro.lisp rather than further mangling dependent.lisp
(which is full of relatively ancient excl code), and updated
clx.asd. Small changes to the reader conditionalization in depdefs.lisp
and demos/clx-demos.lisp.

> > Franz, for one, would very much like to be able to point users at a
> > supported CLX module (which we currently do not). While there's a bunch
> > more work necessary to make that happen, making telent-clx run under
> > Allegro is a step in the right direction.
> 
> What does "supported" mean in this instance?  That is, supported by
> whom?  Currently, the release engineering is small-to-nonexistent, and
> I doubt that there's a large pool of workers ready to make the release
> engineering smooth on additional platforms: the support we have from
> the existing vendors comes directly from those vendors or their
> surrogates.

By supported I mean that there's an (even remotely) active clx
community here. By that fact alone, there's an infinitely better chance
of some non-lisp-implementation-specific problem being looked at, than
there is with the clx module Franz currently distributes.

> I suppose what I'm cautioning against is the expectation that the
> existence of telent-clx can absolve an individual vendor of support
> responsibility for their own users; 

No, I fully realize i'm increasing my own potential CLX support load
from none to <possibly some>. :)

> what it can do, of course, is make features and fixes available to
> users of different lisps in a relatively unified way.

I wholeheartedly agree. It's much better than each lisp having their own
private clx. It's one of the reasons I wanted to get this working under
allegro.

> Lest all that seem terribly negative, let me finish by saying "welcome
> aboard!" :-)

Thanks.

-Mikel

_______________________________________________
Portable-clx mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.metacircles.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/portable-clx
See http://www.cliki.net/clx for darcs URL(s)