[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mozilla-os2
Subject:    Re: Fairhurst-zilla (was Re: Hello again)
From:       John Fairhurst <mjf35 () cam ! ac ! uk>
Date:       1998-07-31 11:23:51
[Download RAW message or body]

William A. Law <law@netscape.com> wrote:
>>    I didn't add it because I wasn't sure if I could -- please feel free.
>
> It's your code, so you can add whatever you like.

   It was the a line mentioning NS in some way I was wary of.  Having
read the NPL/MozPL stuff I'm clear and happy.

> Particularly, *only* you can decide how to license your code.  There are
> an infinite number of possible licensing agreements that might work with
> Mozilla, but it appears that the right thing to do would be for you to
> license your code under the *Mozilla* Public License (MPL).

   I think the portions currently in os2fe (os2fe.h, cxhdlrs.cpp, etc)
should be NPL'd, even though they may not quite count as `modifications'
under the NPL.
   I'll issue JLib under the MozPL.

   Replying to another branch, I'm not sure about adding JLib to the
mozilla tree - I use it for other software; the note in the jlib0160.zip
file about `only for Warpzilla' was meant to apply solely to that
distribution, because it's not a final/stable/ship version of 1.6.

>>    Okay.  While not being quite sure what you mean by PM-ness, that was
>> kinda what I was trying to do with JLib: the problem I found was that it
>> became larger & larger with more and more things getting into classes.
>
> What I meant was simply that I would prefer a C++ library that wasn't
> opaque to somebody already knowledgeable about PM.  Also, I'd like a
> library that permitted us to code straight PM calls when/if we needed
> to.

   Using raw PM is not a problem - there are very few PM types in the
header files, but appropriate classes tend to have handle() methods which
return the relevent LHANDLE.

> I used to be a PM C++ library designer/implementor, but I'll try to
> resist the temptation to rewrite JLib to make it look like IBM's
> OpenClass library.

   It's a bit like OpenClass in several ways, notably the message-handling
bits, but there's no Notifier/Observer architecture.
   OpenClass collections are a world cuter :-(

> I think we're ahead of other new Mozilla platforms (BeOS, Rhapsody, and
> Java).

   Gosh.

>>    I'm digesting Henry's post about nglayout -- do you think aiming for a
>> nglayout target at the outset is wise?
>
>[snip]

> A better course of action would be do design an os2fe in such a way as
> to work with the code we've got today yet be able to adapt to NGLayout
> in the future, when it is ready.

   Sounds sensible.  Gotta get the NGLayout code...

-- 
John Fairhurst
http://thor.cam.ac.uk/~mjf35/

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]