[Gambas-user] Community Component Repo

[B Bruen]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 08:51:22 +0930
B Bruen <bbruen at ...2308...> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 May 2014 22:31:02 +0200
> Benoît Minisini <gambas at ...1...> wrote:
> 
> > Le 16/05/2014 19:31, Randall Morgan a écrit :
> > > I have seen Gambas growing in popularity over the past few years, and I
> > > feel something like this could help it grow even more. I think one of the
> > > reasons we see so few components is the lack of a centralized place to host
> > > them. Giving a component author a place to host (even if it is just a wiki
> > > page with a link to SF, BB, or GH, I think would help promote Gambas and
> > > grow the user community. I have not seen the wiki code nor do I know all
> > > the requirements we would need for something like this. But I can tell you
> > > that Wordpress' plugin repo is one of the biggest factors in it's
> > > popularity....
> > 
> > Good idea. But now let's find someone that can do it...
> > 
> > Here is what I suggest, using your ideas:
> > 
> > - Gambas components are like Linux device drivers: they are part of the 
> > language, and their source code must be in the Gambas source code.
> > 
> > - So let's call the components you are talking about "Gambas user 
> > components" and the other "Gambas kernel components" (just for that mail).
> > 
> > - Make the Gambas user component repository a website entire made with 
> > one Gambas project.
> > 
> > - The website allows to upload a component as a source archive.
> > 
> > - The IDE will be able to automatically download, compile and install 
> > the user components from the website if needed.
> > 
> > - Maybe the interpreter can do it also when running a program!
> > 
> > - These components will only be installed in the user home directory.
> > 
> > - Each user component has a version number. The IDE will then detect a 
> > new version, and will be able to download several versions of the same 
> > component.
> > 
> > - Each user component requires some specifics version of Gambas. For 
> > example >= 3.1 and < 4.0.
> > 
> > - Each user component has its own page on the website. The website user 
> > can post comment on the page, and vote.
> > 
> > - Each user component has an icon, a one-line description, and a longer 
> > description.
> > 
> > - Each user component has a gambas component name. To prevent name clash 
> > with kernel components, we will prefix the component name with something 
> > like "comp.".
> > 
> > - A component name can have synonymous.
> > 
> > What do you think ?
> > 
> > Of course the biggest point is : who will do all that?
> >  
> > -- 
> > Benoît Minisini
> > 
> There's a lot of good ideas here in this thread.
> But there is one aspect missing.  That is, gambas development tools.  These are not components, but stand alone applications that aid in developing in gambas.  For example, we have a "product oriented project browser" (we have three "products that are comprised of dozens of gambas projects,this tool lets us browse to particular projects within a product and launch the IDE with it loaded. It does other stuff as well.). Another is a set of three of something I'll hesitantly call "code generators" (they don't generate code but they generate a code skeleton). There are three because 2 are very specific to one of our products, but the third is a general purpose generator that both forward and backward engineers classes in a gambas project and provides generation of certain class aspects far above what the IDE offers.
> 
> But I am digressing.
> We have some components that we have made available via our own website. To my mind they sit somewhere in the middle of all three of Tobi's categories. They are sort of "special purpose", they are somewhat stable but are not official source tree "ready" or better yet "applicable",  You can see them at http://paddys-hill.net/wp/gambas/gambas-components/ and yes that is a
> 
(dammit! Cut my finger today and typing with a finger stall on is not easy. Rest of post is....)

wordpress site.

Why do we use our own site? Primarily because I could get more control over the page content and the upload/download aspects rather than using the current wiki.

Why do we publish our components? Now this is the important bit.  
We get feedback for the functional aspects of the stuff we publish from the users.  They'll very readily tell us when something doesn't work but very little about what is good or "what about...? ideas".  This is what I'd love to see in a common or centralised "user component" site i.e. feedback from other developers about a component.

jm20c  

-- 
B Bruen <bbruen at ...2308...>