[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Suggestions On Getting A Sponsor

On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 08:41:16PM -0400, Michael MacFadden wrote:
> Plenty of web apps do not separate configuration from presentation at 
> all which tends to make maintenance a nightmare.  Streamline however has 
> only 1 configuration file which has about 5 lines in it that set up the 
> connection to a database back end.  So I have tried to address that 
> issue because I have run into that with other packages and found it 
> dissatisfying as well.

This is good to know, and perhaps this comment will inspire someone to
take a look at your package and consider sponsoring it.  (But not me,
since as I mentioned, my reasons for not sponsoring are not solely
limited to my initial reaction to the package.)

> As far as the web app only being supported on a handful of servers,
> that should be taken care of by the package dependencies.  There is
> plenty of packages in Debian that rely on certain other packages.  I
> don't see how this is different.

The issue is that providing a package for a webapp that only integrates
with certain webserver packages in Debian splits the userbase between
those who have a reason to want to use your package, and those who have
to do the integration work themselves anyway and won't see any reason
not to download the tarball.

> Certainly some people think that web apps should be packages.  I know 
> there are plenty of highly useful and popular packages for web apps in 
> Debian right now.  IMP, Gallery, PHPMyAdmin, LDAPExplorer to name a 
> few.  While maybe not as polished as some other packages, they work very 
> well and provide a valuable service to the Debian community.

Of those, I've used the IMP packages regularly, have never gotten around
to checking whether the phpmyadmin package was usable for the use I
would have had for it, and have found that the gallery package
specifically does *not* provide the flexibility I needed for per-user
photo galleries.  FWIW.

> Lastly, in regards to your disdain for a "Streaming protocol on top of 
> HTTP written in PHP";  Streamline does not make or use a streaming 
> protocol on top of HTTP.  HTTP is the streaming protocol.  Most modern 
> media players, XMMS, Helix, Winamp, etc support streaming media over 
> HTTP.  Technically you are correct streamline is not a "Server".  Apache 
> or whatever web server you are using is the real server.  Streaming 
> merely manages the requests for media and sets up the appropriate http 
> headers to allow the media to be streamed back to a client in a useful 
> manner that the web server itself would be unable to do alone.

> It's possible that a better description of the role that Streamline 
> plays in the serving of media could be better worded as to avoid 
> confusion.  However, detailing exactly what the web server is doing and 
> what the web app is doing doesn't seem like it is appropriate for the 
> description of the package.  Possibly there is a happy medium.  I am 
> glad you brought this particular detail to my attention though since it 
> had never crossed my mind.

Well, as I said, that was my reaction to the phrase.  I don't know if
others would have the same reaction, but given your clarifications I
would suggest something more along the lines of "media[1] library and
webcasting service".

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

[1] of course, "media library" could also refer to a tape library, so hrm

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: