[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: RE: split/join
- From: "Eric Ries" <eries@...>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:09:07 -0700
I want to give my full support to this notion of a centralized Lua code
repository. However, I think we should look to other successful repositories
for guidance on how it should work. Personally, I have always been impressed
with the quality and caliber of CPAN, the central Perl archive. They have
tons of high-quality modules available for download. They've even developed
their own perl-based packaging and download tools, so that you can easily
install modules and follow dependencies, etc.
We don't need all that functionality right away, of course. We just need an
archive. Heck, CPAN started as just an FTP site. It's also important that
users take ownership of their module and at least attempt to support it. I
think we've got a pretty good tradition of this in the Lua community, with
great tools like toLua available and generally supported.
Anyway, that's just my $.02. I don't have a server, but I would be willing
to volunteer as a maintainer if one gets started.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of John Passaniti
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 8:43 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: RE: split/join
> > Some things to consider:
> > * Several robust wiki's are just a single cgi script.
> I like the DolphinWiki. No real documentation, but it has a very flexible
> template-based approach that can be extended nicely. It's in Perl, but
> don't hold that against it... 8-)
> > * If there was a wiki at tecgraf / lua.org, the Lua
> > authors would lose the complete control they
> > currently have over the site content.
> Nope. There is nothing intrinsic about Wiki and Wiki-like systems that
> *requires* public access. While it is certainly true that "out
> of the box"
> most Wiki and Wiki-like software grants public access to allow anyone to
> edit anything, that is more an artifact of the Wiki community's
> rather than some intrinsic feature about the software. I run two Wiki
> systems that only I have the ability to edit.
> Most Wiki software doesn't have any built-in security. So you either have
> to add it, or you use the protections provided by your web server's
> authentication. Given that most Wiki implementations are ridiculously
> simple, it's often not a hard thing to add.
> > * Lua is an embedded language, and so code is not
> > generally portable. This limits the effectiveness
> > of exchanging sample code.
> I don't understand this claim. I've seen (and contributed) plenty of code
> in this mailing list that I've been able to apply. Certainly if someone
> writes code that is highly specific to their application, then it probably
> won't be of much use. But even in those cases, sometimes seeing
> a technique
> used by someone else triggers an idea in how to more effectively use Lua.