OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[Berke Durak]

Hello all,

David Teller suggested that I launch a thread on my suggestion at the end of the
"different records, same field name?" thread.

The idea is to define, as part of the OSR process, a list of
"standard" syntax extensions and libraries.  A meta-distribution of Ocaml would
then include, for every element of the ocaml toolchain, a version that has
access to those extensions and libraries.  The name of the extended tool would
be obtained by adding an "s" to the original name.

Hence, assuming that we agree that Alain Frisch's openin and, say, Pcre should
be part of the standard, then

   ocamlcs (resp. ocamlopts)

would be a script calling ocamlc (resp. ocamlopt) with options

  -I +pcre -pp pa_openin

Then we'd tell people new to Ocaml to use those instead; the existing users
will be told to just add an "s".

This would make the answer of the question

   "how do I open modules locally and parse XML fetched thru HTTP in Ocaml?"

become as simple as

   I assume you are using Ocaml-OSR.
   Use Netclient and Xmlm; for local modules, do "open M in...".

instead of

   First, you must install Netclient and Xmlm.  What OS are you using?
   For debian, you must do apt-get install ocaml-netclient ocaml-xmlm.
   For NetBSD, you must install GODI then Ocamlfind.  Then, you must
   install the openin extension and -I +netclient -I ... to your command line.

A few switches such as -only unix,pcre should be added to ocamlcs to prevent it
from linking it everything if this is a concern.
-- 
Berke DURAK

Re: [Caml-list] OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[Hezekiah M. Carty]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Berke Durak <berke.durak@exalead.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>  David Teller suggested that I launch a thread on my suggestion at the end of the
>  "different records, same field name?" thread.
>
>  The idea is to define, as part of the OSR process, a list of
>  "standard" syntax extensions and libraries.  A meta-distribution of Ocaml would
>  then include, for every element of the ocaml toolchain, a version that has
>  access to those extensions and libraries.  The name of the extended tool would
>  be obtained by adding an "s" to the original name.
>
>  Hence, assuming that we agree that Alain Frisch's openin and, say, Pcre should
>  be part of the standard, then
>
>    ocamlcs (resp. ocamlopts)
>
>  would be a script calling ocamlc (resp. ocamlopt) with options
>
>   -I +pcre -pp pa_openin
>
>  Then we'd tell people new to Ocaml to use those instead; the existing users
>  will be told to just add an "s".

I like this idea, and think that it would make getting started with
OCaml and its libraries much easier for new users.

>
>  A few switches such as -only unix,pcre should be added to ocamlcs to prevent it
>  from linking it everything if this is a concern.

If ocamlfind were included as a standard part of the community OCaml
distribution, then I think it would ease this process significantly.
The standard set of libraries and syntax extensions could be checked
against the proposed extra switches (-onlylibs/-exceptlibs/-libs) and
used accordingly.  The user would only need to know the ocamlfind name
of the library they wish to include/exclude.  The script would not
have to keep track of including or excluding the proper directories
for each new library which comes along in the ocaml(c|opt) search path
since ocamlfind takes care of this.  I think ocamlfind/findlib
supports syntax extension packages as well - if it does then these
could be handled in the same way.

Hez

-- 
Hezekiah M. Carty
Graduate Research Assistant
University of Maryland
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science

Re: OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[Sylvain Le Gall]

On 04-03-2008, Hezekiah M. Carty <hcarty@atmos.umd.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Berke Durak <berke.durak@exalead.com> wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>>  David Teller suggested that I launch a thread on my suggestion at the end of the
>>  "different records, same field name?" thread.
>>
>>  The idea is to define, as part of the OSR process, a list of
>>  "standard" syntax extensions and libraries.  A meta-distribution of Ocaml would
>>  then include, for every element of the ocaml toolchain, a version that has
>>  access to those extensions and libraries.  The name of the extended tool would
>>  be obtained by adding an "s" to the original name.
>>
>>  Hence, assuming that we agree that Alain Frisch's openin and, say, Pcre should
>>  be part of the standard, then
>>
>>    ocamlcs (resp. ocamlopts)
>>
>>  would be a script calling ocamlc (resp. ocamlopt) with options
>>
>>   -I +pcre -pp pa_openin
>>
>>  Then we'd tell people new to Ocaml to use those instead; the existing users
>>  will be told to just add an "s".
>
> I like this idea, and think that it would make getting started with
> OCaml and its libraries much easier for new users.
>
>>
>>  A few switches such as -only unix,pcre should be added to ocamlcs to prevent it
>>  from linking it everything if this is a concern.
>
> If ocamlfind were included as a standard part of the community OCaml
> distribution, then I think it would ease this process significantly.
> The standard set of libraries and syntax extensions could be checked
> against the proposed extra switches (-onlylibs/-exceptlibs/-libs) and
> used accordingly.  The user would only need to know the ocamlfind name
> of the library they wish to include/exclude.  The script would not
> have to keep track of including or excluding the proper directories
> for each new library which comes along in the ocaml(c|opt) search path
> since ocamlfind takes care of this.  I think ocamlfind/findlib
> supports syntax extension packages as well - if it does then these
> could be handled in the same way.
>

And ocamlfind also supports camlp4(o|r) and any other syntax extension
through the camlp4:

Extract from the manpage of ocamlfind:

-syntax pred-name-list

 These predicates are assumed to be true in addition  to the standard
 preprocessor predicates. See below for a list.

and

syntax

 This predicate is set if there is a -syntax option. It is set both for
 the preprocessor and the compiler/linker stage,  and it can be used to
 find out whether the preprocessor is enabled or not.

I.e. ocamlcs = ocamlfind ocaml -syntax openin! Just have to define
package name. The OSR can list the minimum syntax extension to be found
on a system...

Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall

Re: [Caml-list] OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[Dario Teixeira]

> If ocamlfind were included as a standard part of the community OCaml
> distribution, then I think it would ease this process significantly.

Hi,

Indeed.  I was about to start my own OSR thread concerning the proper
use of ocamlfind with libraries that offer a syntax extension.  One
good example is PG'OCaml (by Rich Jones): it ships with a META file
that makes the use of the syntax extension really simple with findlib.
This is the META file: (I just removed the description lines)

name="pgocaml"
version="1.0"
requires="unix,extlib,csv,pcre,calendar"
archive(byte)="pgocaml.cma"
archive(native)="pgocaml.cmxa"

package "statements" (
  requires = "pgocaml,camlp4"
  version = "1.0"
  archive(syntax,preprocessor) = "pa_pgsql.cmo"
  archive(syntax,toploop) = "pa_pgsql.cmo"
)


Notice the "statements" subpackage.  Suppose you have a "test.ml" file
that uses PG'OCaml's syntax extension.  Compiling it with findlib is
as simple as:

ocamlfind ocamlc -package pgocaml.statements -syntax camlp4o -c test.ml

This is of course particularly relevant for GODI, and I noticed that not
all GODI packages ship with camlp4-friendly META files (Sexplib, for one).
Moreover, it would be nice if a standard name could be found for these
subpackages.  PG'OCaml uses "statements", but that may be a bit long-winded.
What about just "pp"?

Now, to reach package nirvana, we just need to get Ocamlbuild to be
friendlier to findlib -- including in the use of these syntax extensions.

Cheers,
Dario Teixeira



      __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Inbox. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

Re: [Caml-list] Re: OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[David Teller]

I believe we souldn't live without 
* open_in
* some list/array/stream/... comprehension (mine or another one,
preferably ExtLib-aware).

Cheers,
 David

-- 
David Teller
 Security of Distributed Systems
  http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller
 Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act brings liquidations. 

Re: [Caml-list] Re: OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[Hezekiah M. Carty]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:55 PM, David Teller
<David.Teller@univ-orleans.fr> wrote:
> I believe we souldn't live without
>  * open_in
>  * some list/array/stream/... comprehension (mine or another one,
>  preferably ExtLib-aware).

I agree wholeheartedly with the inclusion of those syntax extensions
as standard.  I know they would help clean up a lot of my own code.
However, I think that the libraries and syntax extensions to include
by default should be in a separate thread to help maintain focus.
Particularly given that there is some (initial) agreement on this
particular OSR proposal.

Hez

-- 
Hezekiah M. Carty
Graduate Research Assistant
University of Maryland
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science

Re: [Caml-list] Re: OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[Paolo Donadeo]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:55 PM, David Teller
<David.Teller@univ-orleans.fr> wrote:

> I believe we souldn't live without open_in

I add my vote for open_in.


-- 
Paolo Donadeo, Senior Software Engineer
Studio Associato 4Sigma
Email: p.donadeo@4sigma.it
~
~
:wq

Re: [Caml-list] Re: OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[Lukasz Stafiniak]

I propose adding the "and" syntax to open_in:

open X and Y in ...

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Paolo Donadeo <p.donadeo@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:55 PM, David Teller
>  <David.Teller@univ-orleans.fr> wrote:
>
>
> > I believe we souldn't live without open_in
>
>  I add my vote for open_in.
>

Re: [Caml-list] OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[Richard Jones]

On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 06:12:19PM +0100, Berke Durak wrote:
> Hence, assuming that we agree that Alain Frisch's openin and, say, Pcre 
> should
> be part of the standard, then
> 
>   ocamlcs (resp. ocamlopts)
> 
> would be a script calling ocamlc (resp. ocamlopt) with options
> 
>  -I +pcre -pp pa_openin

Why is this better then the equivalent ocamlfind command?

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones
Red Hat

Re: [Caml-list] OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[Ed Keith]

I do not think ocamlfind works with MS-Windows.

   -EdK

--- "Hezekiah M. Carty" <hcarty@atmos.umd.edu> wrote:

> 
> If ocamlfind were included as a standard part of the
> community OCaml
> distribution, then I think it would ease this
> process significantly.
> The standard set of libraries and syntax extensions
> could be checked
> against the proposed extra switches
> (-onlylibs/-exceptlibs/-libs) and
> used accordingly.  The user would only need to know
> the ocamlfind name
> of the library they wish to include/exclude.  The
> script would not
> have to keep track of including or excluding the
> proper directories
> for each new library which comes along in the
> ocaml(c|opt) search path
> since ocamlfind takes care of this.  I think
> ocamlfind/findlib
> supports syntax extension packages as well - if it
> does then these
> could be handled in the same way.
> 
> Hez
> 
> -- 
> Hezekiah M. Carty
> Graduate Research Assistant
> University of Maryland
> Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
>
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
> 


Ed Keith
e_d_k@yahoo.com

Blog: edkeith.blogspot.com


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

Re: [Caml-list] OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[Yaron Minsky]

For what it's worth, improvements to ocaml's windows support would  
make for a great osp proposal...

Yaron Minsky

On Mar 4, 2008, at 7:30 PM, Ed Keith <e_d_k@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I do not think ocamlfind works with MS-Windows.
>
>   -EdK
>
> --- "Hezekiah M. Carty" <hcarty@atmos.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> If ocamlfind were included as a standard part of the
>> community OCaml
>> distribution, then I think it would ease this
>> process significantly.
>> The standard set of libraries and syntax extensions
>> could be checked
>> against the proposed extra switches
>> (-onlylibs/-exceptlibs/-libs) and
>> used accordingly.  The user would only need to know
>> the ocamlfind name
>> of the library they wish to include/exclude.  The
>> script would not
>> have to keep track of including or excluding the
>> proper directories
>> for each new library which comes along in the
>> ocaml(c|opt) search path
>> since ocamlfind takes care of this.  I think
>> ocamlfind/findlib
>> supports syntax extension packages as well - if it
>> does then these
>> could be handled in the same way.
>>
>> Hez
>>
>> -- 
>> Hezekiah M. Carty
>> Graduate Research Assistant
>> University of Maryland
>> Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
>>
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
>> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
>> Beginner's list:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
>> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>>
>
>
> Ed Keith
> e_d_k@yahoo.com
>
> Blog: edkeith.blogspot.com
>
>
>       
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
 

> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

RE: [Caml-list] OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntaxextensions and extra libraries

[David Allsopp]

ocamlfind is fine under Windows - you just have to compile it using
Cygwin+MinGW (same as OCaml).

-----Original Message-----
From: caml-list-bounces@yquem.inria.fr
[mailto:caml-list-bounces@yquem.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Ed Keith
Sent: 05 March 2008 00:30
To: Hezekiah M. Carty; Berke Durak
Cc: Caml-list List; David Teller
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing
syntaxextensions and extra libraries

I do not think ocamlfind works with MS-Windows.

   -EdK

--- "Hezekiah M. Carty" <hcarty@atmos.umd.edu> wrote:

> 
> If ocamlfind were included as a standard part of the
> community OCaml
> distribution, then I think it would ease this
> process significantly.
> The standard set of libraries and syntax extensions
> could be checked
> against the proposed extra switches
> (-onlylibs/-exceptlibs/-libs) and
> used accordingly.  The user would only need to know
> the ocamlfind name
> of the library they wish to include/exclude.  The
> script would not
> have to keep track of including or excluding the
> proper directories
> for each new library which comes along in the
> ocaml(c|opt) search path
> since ocamlfind takes care of this.  I think
> ocamlfind/findlib
> supports syntax extension packages as well - if it
> does then these
> could be handled in the same way.
> 
> Hez
> 
> -- 
> Hezekiah M. Carty
> Graduate Research Assistant
> University of Maryland
> Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
>
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
> 


Ed Keith
e_d_k@yahoo.com

Blog: edkeith.blogspot.com


 
____________________________________________________________________________
________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

Re: [Caml-list] OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[Berke Durak]

Richard Jones a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 06:12:19PM +0100, Berke Durak wrote:
>> Hence, assuming that we agree that Alain Frisch's openin and, say, Pcre 
>> should
>> be part of the standard, then
>>
>>   ocamlcs (resp. ocamlopts)
>>
>> would be a script calling ocamlc (resp. ocamlopt) with options
>>
>>  -I +pcre -pp pa_openin
> 
> Why is this better then the equivalent ocamlfind command?

It's not better.  It's not the same thing;  ocamlcs could indeed be implemented
with ocamlfind.

The idea is to collectively define a set of things like pa_openin, a Unicode library
or a Xml library, include them by default in a meta-distribution, and patch or wrap
over the base commands to ensure that those can be used with little to no command-line flags.

In other words, using unicode should be as simple as using a built-in library; in particular,
I don't want to have to add -I +unicode; it would be fine if I could just add unicode.cma;
better if I didn't have to.
-- 
Berke DURAK

Re: [Caml-list] OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[Alain Frisch]

Berke Durak wrote:
> It's not better.  It's not the same thing;  ocamlcs could indeed be 
> implemented
> with ocamlfind.

I think ocamlfind basically solves the technical aspect of this 
OCaml-OSR distribution (although if you are ready to add .cma or -pp 
flags explicitly, just installing all the selected libraries together in 
the same directory as OCaml stdlib would also work).

But of course, the real issues with an extended distribution are not 
technical. Btw, there has already been an attempt to maintain such a 
distribution several years ago (Google for "Caml Development Kit"). It 
might be wise to look at the reasons why it is no longer active.

Some of the issues that need to be addressed:

- what is the intended audience? The will influence both the selection 
process and the motivation of people putting efforts into the distribution.

- what is the process to select new libraries, or to remove existing 
ones? I can imagine that many libraries will have a few supporters and 
no strong opponent, so there is a risk/chance that OCaml-OSR will just 
end up incorporating a huge amount of libraries. It should be decided 
early whether this is a good thing or not.

- what is the policy w.r.t. to upgrades of libraries? It is very common 
that a new version of a library break existing code, so simply upgrading 
as soon as possible might not be the best choice. Should several 
versions of OCaml-OSR be maintained in parallel?

- what should be done when a library doesn't work out-of-the box for a 
new version of OCaml? Should it be removed (temporarily) so as to allow 
an early distribution of OCaml-OSR with the new OCaml?

- who's in charge of maintaining a web site, upgrading libraries, 
testing for several architecture, preparing releases, etc?  This is a 
lot of work, so a collaborative approach might be needed, but 
responsibilities need to be defined.

- will there be binary distributions? (Relying on Debian/Fedora/... 
OCaml developpers does not solve the question for Windows.

- will the addition/upgrade of a single library force to reinstall all 
of OCaml-OSR, or will the distribution be made modular?

- will there be a common place to find the documentation for all the 
selected packages?

- will libraries that depend on C code and/or external components be 
accepted?


-- Alain

Re: [Caml-list] OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[Gerd Stolpmann]

Am Dienstag, den 04.03.2008, 16:30 -0800 schrieb Ed Keith:
> I do not think ocamlfind works with MS-Windows.

You may think that, but of course it works, thanks to lots of users who
helped me porting it.

Gerd

> 
>    -EdK
> 
> --- "Hezekiah M. Carty" <hcarty@atmos.umd.edu> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > If ocamlfind were included as a standard part of the
> > community OCaml
> > distribution, then I think it would ease this
> > process significantly.
> > The standard set of libraries and syntax extensions
> > could be checked
> > against the proposed extra switches
> > (-onlylibs/-exceptlibs/-libs) and
> > used accordingly.  The user would only need to know
> > the ocamlfind name
> > of the library they wish to include/exclude.  The
> > script would not
> > have to keep track of including or excluding the
> > proper directories
> > for each new library which comes along in the
> > ocaml(c|opt) search path
> > since ocamlfind takes care of this.  I think
> > ocamlfind/findlib
> > supports syntax extension packages as well - if it
> > does then these
> > could be handled in the same way.
> > 
> > Hez
> > 
> > -- 
> > Hezekiah M. Carty
> > Graduate Research Assistant
> > University of Maryland
> > Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> >
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> > Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> > Beginner's list:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
> > 
> 
> 
> Ed Keith
> e_d_k@yahoo.com
> 
> Blog: edkeith.blogspot.com
> 
> 
>       ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
> 
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gerd Stolpmann * Viktoriastr. 45 * 64293 Darmstadt * Germany 
gerd@gerd-stolpmann.de          http://www.gerd-stolpmann.de
Phone: +49-6151-153855                  Fax: +49-6151-997714
------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [Caml-list] OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[Bünzli Daniel]

Le 5 mars 08 à 12:41, Alain Frisch a écrit :

> Some of the issues that need to be addressed:

[...]

I will add :

- What's the relation of this project to the package distribution  
system we talked some weeks ago ?

I have absolutely no interest in this "Batteries included" thing, I  
like to select the packages I use and have an absolute distaste for  
pre-processor hacks. I think priority should go in simplifying/ 
standardizing module distribution/construction and their dependencies  
accross platforms. Good packages will eventually emerge\x13 from this  
system and you may then flag some of them as  Duracell® packages or  
what not. But a developer-oriented, non-monolithic package  
distribution mechanism needs to be devised first. This discussion  
seems premature to me, it already calls for too much infrastructure,  
agreeement and manpower. I also suspect that with an easy to use  
distribution system this "Batteries included" thing just won't be  
necessary.

Best,

Daniel

Re: [Caml-list] OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[Dario Teixeira]

Hi,

> I think ocamlfind basically solves the technical aspect of this 
> OCaml-OSR distribution (although if you are ready to add .cma or -pp 
> flags explicitly, just installing all the selected libraries together in 
> the same directory as OCaml stdlib would also work).

Indeed.  Personally, I see little technical need for ocamlcs.  With built-in
support for Findlib in Ocamlbuild and properly constructed META files, using
any syntax extension (even if the extension depended on other extensions or
libraries) could be achieved with a simple entry in a _tags file.


> But of course, the real issues with an extended distribution are not 
> technical. Btw, there has already been an attempt to maintain such a 
> distribution several years ago (Google for "Caml Development Kit"). It 
> might be wise to look at the reasons why it is no longer active.

You are quite right.  Moreover, considering that technically the advantage
of ocamlcs over plain Ocamlbuild+Findlib is not that great, I also think
that managing ocamlcs might be too much trouble for very little benefit.

This of course does not invalidate the original intention of this OSR:
we do need to simplify the use of syntax extensions.  However, Ocaml won't
need to include batteries if getting them is as simple as pushing a button.

Cheers,
Dario Teixeira



      ___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/

Re: [Caml-list] OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[Richard Jones]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 01:02:46PM +0100, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
> 
> Am Dienstag, den 04.03.2008, 16:30 -0800 schrieb Ed Keith:
> > I do not think ocamlfind works with MS-Windows.
> 
> You may think that, but of course it works, thanks to lots of users who
> helped me porting it.

Which version?  That's really excellent news and now I can remove all
the Windows specific hacks in the virt-ctrl Makefiles and tell Windows
users to just go & install findlib first :-)

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones
Red Hat

Re: [Caml-list] OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 06:12:19PM +0100, Berke Durak wrote:
> The idea is to define, as part of the OSR process, a list of
> "standard" syntax extensions and libraries.

Even though the whole thread seems to be syntax extension -oriented, I
had from this short sentence that you were interested in libraries as
well.

On the basis of this assumption I really would like to see the
"batteries included" distribution to come with ExtLib in it and, really
important, open-ed by default. That is, when I use List.map in my
programs I want that List.map to be the one from ExtLib rather than the
usual, non-tail recursive version.  Similarly, I want to be able to use
new functions defined in ExtList as they were in List without the need
to open anything.

Actually, I was going to mock up by myself a proof of concept
distribution of OCaml with extlib build during the build process and
some hacks to open it by default. But given that you've started this
thread I guess the efforts should be better merged.

Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{upsilon.cc,cs.unibo.it,debian.org}  -<%>-  http://upsilon.cc/zack/
(15:56:48)  Zack: e la demo dema ?    /\    All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15)  Bac: no, la demo scema    \/    right keys at the right time

Re: [Caml-list] OSR - "Batteries included" - Standardizing syntax extensions and extra libraries

[Jim Miller]

This is an excellent exposition of what I agree are the real issues in
this effort.  Technical issues are the easy ones to solve, its the
non-technical that get hard.  I've looked at the old CDK archives and
didn't see a summarized list of the reasons why it was being shut down
but I'd be really interested in hearing a brief summary, many of which
I'm sure are reflected in Alain's comments below.

My personal opinion (FWIW) is that I'd like a CDK type thing, or at
least have the ability to put an OCAML-OSR "release" onto a CD.  I
work in a LOT of environments where we don't have access to the
Internet and I end up having to copy stuff back and forth on CD.  (USB
pen drives are beginning to be restricted so yes, it tends to be CD).
Having a fully contained distribution where I KNOW that I have
everything, or at least know everything I have, would save a huge
amount of the frustration I've had over the years.

>  - what is the intended audience? The will influence both the selection
>  process and the motivation of people putting efforts into the distribution.

I believe that the audience should be the non-sysadmin developer.
While existing package management schemes are great the system should
not require root access to install.

>
>  - what is the policy w.r.t. to upgrades of libraries? It is very common
>  that a new version of a library break existing code, so simply upgrading
>  as soon as possible might not be the best choice. Should several
>  versions of OCaml-OSR be maintained in parallel?
>
>  - what should be done when a library doesn't work out-of-the box for a
>  new version of OCaml? Should it be removed (temporarily) so as to allow
>  an early distribution of OCaml-OSR with the new OCaml?
>
>  - who's in charge of maintaining a web site, upgrading libraries,
>  testing for several architecture, preparing releases, etc?  This is a
>  lot of work, so a collaborative approach might be needed, but
>  responsibilities need to be defined.
>

I'd support three variations.  Stable, Unstable, and Experimental.
Having a lifecycle that introduces a new release at the Experimental
phase and having it move through Unstable to Stable would allow for
sufficient testing.  Libraries that are being considered for a release
could be included in the Experimental phase with the requirement that
once it moves to Unstable, that the API must remain the same.  A new
major version of the library, one that breaks the API, would have to
be introduced in the next Experimental release.

There are then two ways to assign people to this.  A different
individual, or group of individuals, can take ownership of a release
when it is first created in the Experimental state and continue owning
it until it moves into the Stable state.  The second way is to have a
team that handles a particular stage and hands a release to another
team.  The level of commitment at the Experimental state is much
higher than the Unstable, which is much higher than the Stable.  By
the Stable release the managers would hopefully only be rolling in
minor bugs and rebundling, if necessary.

>  - will there be binary distributions? (Relying on Debian/Fedora/...
>  OCaml developpers does not solve the question for Windows.

I think that the primary OCAML-OSR release should be in source form
only, Godi style.  If other people want to release binary packages
then they can sign up to do that.  It should be a different group of
people from the OCAML-OSR maintainers described above.

>
>  - will the addition/upgrade of a single library force to reinstall all
>  of OCaml-OSR, or will the distribution be made modular?

Distribution should be modular but there is a case that can be made
for a monolithic install.

>
>  - will there be a common place to find the documentation for all the
>  selected packages?

I think that the documentation should be included as part of the
distribution itself.  I think that this is one thing that the JDK did
right.  Having the documentation for the entire library in one place
is very nice and something I find frustrating about OCaml.  I've gone
so far as to hand create my own JDK-ish page with all of the libraries
I use ... I'd like to see something more standard as part of this.

>
>  - will libraries that depend on C code and/or external components be
>  accepted?

I think that the distribution needs to be self contained.  Any C
libraries that are required by it must be installed during
installation if they don't already exist on the system.  We run into
this issue with software distribution all the time for our C++ based
systems.  We depend on many libraries but depending on the system they
may or may not be present.  This is a royal pain.

I think that anything that either can't or shouldn't be distributed
should be packaged as an extension to the OCaml-OSR release and not
part of the core.