The OpenAmiga Standard

[DaveP]

Hmmm.

I like the basis behind the idea but I think you will have a problem choosing either CyberGFX or Picasso96 "standards" as neither are particularly open or within our domain to control. Plus I think you get into the Cyber vs Picasso debate. Given you have made the decision to throw away WOS and PUP may I suggest you throw away P96 and CGFX?

Also including MUI will cause similar strains. What would be more useful is if you just stuck to the AOS3.1 API as being the open standard revision #1 and then allow other bodies to submit revisions to that for sound, graphics and higher level interfaces.

This forces subcommittees to get the political and technical issues out of the way.

Sort of the way that CORBA is handled by OMG.

[DaveP]

@Warface

Exactly. Thats why Im suggesting to throw everything out apart from what is in AOS3.1 and anything new that comes in should not be one or the other of the contencious subsystems in popular use.

This would mean to adhere to the standard might be just a matter of an API which is glue code to an underlying subsystem like CGFX or its the excuse to do a completely new implementation rectifying all those design and implementation flaws....

However I too am skeptical about the practicality of this idea.

[DaveP]

Thats true, but imperfectly so. But the point is do you remember the fora flamewars about P96 vs CGFX?

[DaveP]

Yep, but you have to go low enough such that behavioral aspects are consistent.

Where that is, I don't know. :-)

[DaveP]

Well that is why the standards need to start with a portable subset, which may risk not being able to do certain things:

1. Music/sound.
2. Open custom screens.

This basically returns us to the OS3.1 API which is there already, in fact less than that because we are ignoring calls to screens and the like that would tie us to AGA, P96, CGX whatever - so we are basically looking at apps that open on the workbench screen.

Later revisions can tackle common apis for the bits that have to be sliced open. But as a developer you know that if you code for the portable subset, its going to work.

Problem is, how to "open" a proprietry API like AOS? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[DaveP]

So basically what you are saying is that you want AROS to be the reference implementation of a standard that is basically the AROS design documents?

[DaveP]

No reason why not. Should be interesting. :-)

[DaveP]

Good luck guys :-) Keep the ball rolling!

Dave - signing off for a bit.