[Gambas-devel] User components in Gambas 3

[David Villalobos Cambronero]

2010/4/20 Benoît Minisini <gambas at ...1...>

> Hi,
>
> I post this mail on both mailing-lists: please answer on the developer
> mailing-list if possible, as this is related to the development version!
>
> I'm currently thinking about how user components should work in Gambas 3,
> as I
> dislike the way it was designed in Gambas 2.
>
> In Gambas 2, user components work the same way as normal components made
> with
> Gambas, except that they are symbolic located in the home directory that
> point
> at the real executables.
>
> That design lead to many problems: you can't make packages of user
> components
> easily, and if the real executable moves, the symbolic link is broken while
> the IDE think the component is there.
>
> So, for Gambas 3, I propose a different design:
>
> - There are no "user" components anymore.
>
> - Instead, a project will be able to depend on other projects.
>
> - The list of associated projects will be defined in the IDE project option
> dialog.
>
> - That list will be just a list of project *names*.
>
> - At design time, these project will be search inside one or more
> directories
> that will be defined as a IDE global option.
>
> - At run time, the associated projects will be searched by using the $PATH
> environmental variable, as any other executables.
>
> Consequently:
>
> - The IDE global option will tell where you store the projects you want to
> use
> as components.
>
> - These projects will be packaged separately and installed like any other
> Gambas projects.
>
> - They should have a special name, because they are not real executables,
> but
> some sort of "Gambas" libraries instead.
>
> - So the project executables should be in the $PATH. And so the main
> project
> will find them easily.
>
> - When creating the main project packages, it will be easy to add a
> dependency
> on the associated project packages.
>
> I need to find a good term for these "associated" projects. I'd like to
> find
> something different than "component".
>
> Even if internally the interpreter will use the same code to load them, I
> want
> the user to understand easily that they do not work the same way.
>
> Maybe "library" would be a good term...
>
> What do you think about the new design?
>
> --
> Benoît Minisini
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Gambas-devel mailing list
> Gambas-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gambas-devel
>

I think it is OK, see no problem.

Here are some synonyms for component, may help you find a good name: basic,
composing,  elemental, fundamental, inherent, integral, intrinsic, part
and  parcel  of,  part  of, part, element, constituent, factor, fixings,
ingredient, item, making, makings, peripheral, piece, plug-in, segment,
unit.

-- 
Regards
---
David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gambas-basic.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100420/b7440354/attachment.html>