Author Registration
My name: Sergei A. Nemarov My E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home page: http://www.tapor.com Preferred User-ID: SNEMAROV I'm planning to contribute Net::ICQV5 (http://www.tapor.com/NetICQ/) module. -- Sergei A. Nemarov ([EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.tapor.com ICQ: 123055)
Re: Net::* instant messaging modules
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
NetPacket
Tim, I'm happy to see that you uploaded NetPacket 0.03 yesterday. Even though I haven't seen any public flames (yet), it seems I have made a major mistake wrt CPAN etiquette. For trampling on your namespace, I apologize. While I did try to find you and speak with you before submitting the update, I have since discovered that I just didn't look in the right places. o I sent an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you remember me e-mailing you almost a year ago about this same bug *with* a patch? o I tracked down your home page and found there were no updates since the beginning of 2000. o The last post I could find from you in the Deja usenet archive was from November of 1999. o I asked in #perl on EFNet and no one knew how to contact you. I hope you don't harbor any ill feelings towards me. My goal was to get a bugfix that significantly affected the usefulness of the TCP package out there to people. I did not try to take credit for the modules and even praised your hard work and creativity in the Changes file. I am taking it as a lesson learned. I should have checked and posted to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] archive before uploading. I was a bit disappointed that you removed every reference of me from version 0.03. Thought you would at least keep my name and e-mail address in the AUTHOR section of NetPacket.pm or TCP.pm. It's not a big deal but would have been a nice touch. Best Regards, Benjamin R. Ginter (BRG) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Module update for Net::Bind
Record update in the PAUSE modules database: modid: [Net::Bind] statd: [a] stats: [d] statl: [p] stati: [O] statp: [?] description: [Interface to bind daemon files] userid: [BBB] was [KJOHNSON] chapterid: [ 5] mlstatus: [list] Data entered by Kevin Johnson (KJOHNSON). Please check if they are correct. The Pause
Re: NetPacket
Benjamin R. Ginter writes: > I'm happy to see that you uploaded NetPacket 0.03 yesterday. Even > though I haven't seen any public flames (yet), it seems I have made a > major mistake wrt CPAN etiquette. For trampling on your namespace, I > apologize. No worries. I'm actually surprised that the CPAN uploader system allowed you to do it. I thought there was supposed to be some permissions system in place. > While I did try to find you and speak with you before submitting the > update, I have since discovered that I just didn't look in the right > places. > > o I sent an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you remember me > e-mailing you almost a year ago about this same bug *with* a patch? It's been a long time and I get a lot of mail. (-: > o I tracked down your home page and found there were no updates since > the beginning of 2000. > > o The last post I could find from you in the Deja usenet archive was > from November of 1999. > > o I asked in #perl on EFNet and no one knew how to contact you. I do admit to being rather slack given that quite a few people have sent mail about various bugs in Netpacket. Unfortunately it wasn't something that I used regularly anymore so I didn't manage to find much time for it. Netpacket is now on sourceforge which will hopefully make it easier for other people to commit stuff and/or take over maintainership of the project if that is necessary. You were probably justified in releasing something given that it has been a couple of years since I did, and how unresponsive I've been. > I was a bit disappointed that you removed every reference of me from > version 0.03. Thought you would at least keep my name and e-mail address > in the AUTHOR section of NetPacket.pm or TCP.pm. It's not a big deal but > would have been a nice touch. Sorry - I'll update the changes/readme file to include a list of contributors for the next release. Unfortunately I didn't keep your original mails. )-: I now have a habit of committing changes with the email address of the patcher in the CVS message to remind me where the patch came from. > Benjamin R. Ginter (BRG) > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hey, I remember this email address bouncing before - odd... Regards, Tim.
Re: Net::* instant messaging modules
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/
