I agree - an optional package makes more sense for the moment. The spkg is less than a mb, fortunately, so adding it to the standard packages eventually wouldn't inflate the total size that much.
There are several optional packages that I use a lot and I hope to eventually have in sage as standard (biopython, polymake, phcpack) but I am waiting to make my final case (for different reasons for each package, but that's another thread I guess). I think this could be an exciting way to get all the java applet makers out there interested in sage, although I don't completely understand the architecture of what this is supposed to do. Cheers, Marshall Hampton On Jan 22, 6:23 am, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 22, 2008 5:05 AM, Ted Kosan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > William wrote: > > > > > If further testing is successful, I would like to have simpleJSON > > > > included in SAGE. What procedure do I need to follow in order to make > > > > an official software addition request? > > > > (1) Convince us it's a good idea. You basically just did that. > > > > (2) Create a trac ticket and then to attach some code that > > > we can try it out. > > > A simpleJSON spkg has now been created and more information about it > > can be found in its trac ticket: > > >http://www.sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/1510 > > > William has added the following comment to this ticket which requests > > that the spkg be discussed on sage-devel before deciding on whether or > > not to include it in Sage: > > > >I think some sort of general voting and discussion should occur > > before including > > >any new packages standard in Sage, especially ones that don't cover > > some very clear > > >mathematical area that is completely unconvered by Sage (e.g., R and > > >PolyBori? > > >did address a clear mathematical area). In particular, it is > > _critical_ that there be > > >more than one person who really wants the package to go in before we > > even consider > > >putting it in. I suggest that: > > > > 1. simplejson be made an optional package, > > > 2. there be a post to sage-devel to start some discussion about whether > > > this actually > > >belongs in Sage. That it is is easy to put in > > >Sage (it's pure python) is a plus, but is > > >definitely not enough of an argument (to put it mildly). > > > >Remember, every package that goes into Sage will cause Michael > > Abshoff, and me, > > >and others headaches at some point, and will add > > >to the horrendous problem we > > >already have with packages getting out of date with upstream. > > > >Also, perhaps there should be somebody -- probably Ted in this case > > -- who very clear > > >volunteers to keep the package up to date for the next year, and find > > somebody to take > > >over if they can't continue. > > > >The above was quick brainstorming. It is not meant to be some well > > thought out procedure, > > >which is something I don't think we have yet. -- William > > > The purpose for adding simpleJSON to Sage is to give clients an > > object-based, language-neutral method for communicating with the Sage > > server. This package is not about adding mathematical capabilities to > > Sage, but rather, it is for allowing clients to more easily access the > > mathematical functionality it already has. I am specifically using > > simpleJSON to allow applets, which are loaded from a separate server > > into a worksheet, to pull data out of Sage. Allowing applets to be > > loaded from a separate server removes the need for them to be included > > with Sage itself which I think is a good route to follow. > > > I have estimated that there are probably hundreds of math, science, > > and engineering-oriented Java applets in existence that are capable of > > adding value to Sage. My goal with these applets is to not only make > > them available in the notebook, but to also attract a significant > > number of their developers to the Sage project so that they can add > > even more value to it. > > > If there is no easy way for these applets to communicate with the Sage > > server, however, there is not much point in embedding them in a > > worksheet. > > > As for the idea of making simpleJSON an optional package, my thought > > is that there is little point in this. If a newbie Windows user wants > > to use a calculator applet in a worksheet because this is the level of > > technology they are comfortable with, they are probably not going to > > be very successful installing an optional package. > > I can see you don't like the idea of making JSON merely an optional > package but one possibly way to hopefully help your proposal would be to > first make an optional package and then see how that goes. I think for > William and Michael, the effort required to change an optional package > to a standard package isn't great. On the other hand, it does make it > easier for people to test (and even for you to create bug fixes) for > optional packages. You could also add some details about it to the > wiki athttp://wiki.sagemath.org/optional_packages_available_for_SAGE > So, I agree with William. > > > > > Anyway, I researched a number of alternatives before choosing a > > JSON-based solution to this client communications problem. It is > > relatively clean and it seems to work fairly well. If people have > > alternative ways to solve this problem, however, I would like to hear > > them :-) > > > Ted --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
