Hey Guys!
I think this is a wonderful idea. In fact this was one of the reasons I
chose to base Net::AIM on the Net::IRC module. I wanted to build
upon work that was already done. Also I've used, customized and made
minor contributions to Net::IRC. I tried to just rewrite the Connection
class. This way people who have Net::IRC scripts should be able to easily
port them to also use Net::AIM or perhaps use them both by simply changing
the ::Connection.
Anyway something like Net::IM sounds like a great idea or unifying
everything like was mentioned earlier. How do we want to start and
coordinate everything?
Oh, and btw I'm in Lawrence about 4 days a week.
:a)
aryeh
Aryeh Goldsmith
Chief Executive Penguin
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
> 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
>
--
------
Aryeh Goldsmith, NCIA
Chief Executive Penguin
CheckMate Internet Strategies & Solutions
http://www.checkmate.net/
