Matthew Sachs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, perhaps some sort of consolidation is in order. I propose
> that a new second-level hierarchy be created, Net::IM. Some consensus
> between the us would be reached as to the interface to this module,
> and maybe some other details such as style guidelines. It would have
> a facility for creating IM system connections which allows you to
> specify a protocol name, such as TOC, OSCAR, or ICQ. This allows
> application developers to write on application which works with
> all systems, and allows module authors to avoid reinventing the wheel
> with their interfaces.
I'm certainly willing to do this. Perhaps one of us could come up
with a draft spec and we could then have steel cage matches to settle
any differences ;-)
> Net::OSCAR would then be Net::IM::OSCAR (with perhaps a wrapper that
> has a name indicating that it can be used to connect to AIM - and
> eventually perhaps ICQ as well). As for Net::AIM and Net::AOLIM, is
> there a technical reason that the two modules aren't merged? I don't
> even see that many differences in the interfaces. I understand that
> there may be political reasons, but we should try to work those out if
> we can. If not, then they can still be separate modules under the
> Net::IM hierarchy.
I don't think there's really any reason other than "hmmm, I wrote one,
you wrote one, we both want to release ours, whatever." I wouldn't
mind going with either codebase, although clearly I know my own better
than that of Net::AIM.
Who wants to write the specification? I'm probably too busy to get it
done in a timely manner, so if someone else were willing to do it, I'd
be happy. Matthew, what do you say? It's your baby, why don't you
run with it?
--
Riad Wahby
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIT VI-2/A 2002
