[LibX] Questions about libx
godmar at gmail.com
Fri Apr 28 10:08:54 EDT 2006
[ this email is more on the "how should LibX be built/deployed" issue.
If you're subscribed to LibX because you're maintaining an edition,
you can ignore it. We should probably create an libx-announce mailing
list at some point.]
I'd like to reemphasize the importance of the point I'm making below
(even before you get a chance to reply ;-): that it is of tremendous
value to the user that they download a .xpi file that was tested as is
in its entirety.
By contrary example, one of our team member recently taught a class on
Firefox, and tried to include some Greasemonkey scripts to show off
GM. We went to userscripts.org and looked for some cool scripts. The
vast majority of scripts on that site did not work, or we couldn't
figure out how to make them work (before you suspect incompetence, I
have written and occasionally write GM scripts myself for various
ad-hoc tasks, so I'm reasonably familiar with it. I gave up after 2, 3
minutes for each script.)
Such a degree of robustness would be unacceptable to many librarians -
they definitely did not want to put their name (or logo) on such a
piece of software.
As far as your criticism of libx's internal goes, it is fully
accepted. We have some cool stuff we'll include in the current code
base, but I can see a complete namespace etc. cleanup in the near
future unless someone beats us to it.
On 4/28/06, Godmar Back <godmar at gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, we'd like libraries to test their edition and give the user a
> reasonable degree of assurance that what they're running was vetted by
> someone who knows how the library catalog should behave. As an
> example, you may wish to download a test edition, say MIT's:
> http://libx.org/libx/src/editions/libxtestedition.php?edition=mit and
> go through the check list (or at least some of it) shown on that page.
> True, this could be accomplished by having a checkmark next to a
> configuration, however, this would be fragile in the face of other
> code changes. In the current approach the edition is complete, tested
> snapshot of all of LibX's code.
> This would not be the case if new configurations could be loaded into
> an existing installation, because new configurations are not tested
> with the code base a user may have installed.
More information about the Libx