[OGo-Discuss] Re: code documentation [Was: Re: [OGo-Documentation] code documentation]

[Adam Tauno Williams]

--=-lC1fzQoCupGY+c6a/LwZ
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> I'm not sure whether its worth the effort. I dislike talking about =20
> thing being done before they are actually done, but at least I am =20
> shifting most OGo developments to JOPE/Java.

=46rom snippets I've seen I wondered if that was true.

> And while JOPE also lacks high-level documentation, the source code =20
> itself is now pretty well documented (I'm getting older too and need =20
> to document things to remember stuff myself ;-).

Same here!

> What this implies should be discussed on discuss, just wanted to raise =20
> the point that the existing codebase might be become important for =20
> starters in the future ;-)

If OGo moves toward Java I think that would be a generally good thing;
using a more "modern" [or perceived as modern] platform can only help.
Not to mention having better tools.

Has any of the OGo core functionality (Logic) been ported over to Jope?
(is it "Jope" or "JOPE"?). =20

Just curious because I've been building on the zOGI API with one eye on
the possibility that someday I may just have to port the backend to
something else;  that in itself doesn't look that hard (as far as
"Logic" is concerned) but I'd loose all the other nice stuff OGo
provides like DAV/GroupDAV (IMO the really hard hard) and thus Funambol.
I've also played with building a general-purpose ASP.NET WebUI using the
gaia [http://ajaxwidgets.com/] widgets (again on the zOGI API as I
didn't want to get too welded to one backend).

--=-lC1fzQoCupGY+c6a/LwZ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBHZooALRePpNle04MRAtjNAJwNU3xzLyTpUQMK+1FSqlPRE3PfowCeIFrn
32gRfi6GpW1ql17ofSHivtc=
=Zygk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-lC1fzQoCupGY+c6a/LwZ--