lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 14:50, Jim Whitehead II <> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Alexander Gladysh <> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 14:38, Daniel Silverstone
>> <> wrote:

>>> I believe the request is for an additional bit along the lines of:

>>> Redis is a network-attached "data structure" server capable of storing strings,
>>> hashes, lists, sets etc.

>>> Because currently, to someone who knows nothing about what Redis actually is,
>>> your announcement reads like:

>>> This MIT-licensed Lua module binds FOOBLEJAM[1] C client library for
>>> GRUNDLEBURGER[2] server.

>>> You can therefore understand the confusion :-)

>> Well, I suspected that this may be the case.

>> But if a person does not know what GRUNDLEBURGER server is, why would
>> he ever need my module? And for the rest it would be extra completely
>> useless paragraph to skip.

> Because your module might be the reason I start to tinker with
> GRUNDLEBURGER in the first place, since all I have to do is luarocks
> install your module and then start exploring the Lua API.

A valid reason. (Not that I care much about promoting GRUNDLEBURGER
technology though — but it *is* useful.)

>> Given the relatively high hype level around GRUNDLEBURGER technology,
>> I guessed that the majority on the list would know what this is about
>> — on the level that could be expressed by the above description at
>> least.

> Not for me. Although meant to be humorous, what Daniel said is exactly
> how I read your post.

As everyone else does, who are not familiar with technology.

> The point is bindings to libraries are not only
> relevant to those people who already have experience and knowledge
> with that library.. they can easily be an entry point.

But given that we already have *two* independent Lua client libraries
for GRUN^H^H^H^H Redis (both written in plain Lua + LuaSocket), I kind
of suspected that it is not quite necessary in this particular case. I
guess, I was wrong.

> Just my perspective,

Thank you.