Here is my response.

>I do not really care about your wrappers as long as they are in a
> separate library, as stated many times previously, but oppose the
> idea of having them integrated into the main library because they
> are not needed for normal functionality yet add dependencies (thus
> make it harder to use the library when distributed as a DLL) and
> increase size. Note that contrary to what you wrote, libcsound did
> not contain any C++ code (and, more importantly, dependencies on
> libstdc++), it is only your filebuilding.cpp that introduced it.

I am not opposed to having the wrappers in a separate library, as long as 
that library is part of the default distribution of Csound. I have stated 
this previously.

"Normal functionality" is what is at issue here. Implicitly, Istvan is 
appointing himself the arbiter of what is "normal functionality." In a 
cooperative open source project, he does not have the right to do this. Any 
Csound developer has the right to make contributions as long as they compile 
and run and do not interfere with the contributions of others. Csound has 
always been developed in this way, even before it got the LGPL license.

> Also, I did decide not to quit just because people like Richard
> Dobson or yourself would like that,

I have repeatedly stated that I do not want Istvan off the list. And I mean 
that. But, I do want him off if he is going to unilaterally and without 
discussion remove or alter other developers' code. Again, this is not 
acceptable behavior on a public, cooperative project.

> and not respond to any threats
> like being removed from the project. After all, I did more than
> either Richard Dobson, or you, or both combined (check the CVS logs),
> to make something that is actually usable from the pile of junk
> Csound 5 used to be before I joined development.

It is true that Istvan has done more commits than myself. That is why I want 
him to remain on the project!

>It is really
> dishonest and unfair that people who did little or nothing more than
> just lazily sitting around want to drive me away from the project
> on which I worked so hard, and when I am mostly finished want to
> just grab the results without even saying thanks, discrediting and
> locking me out.

However, I don't think an objective observer would say that I have been 
"lazily sitting around". I created the Csound API in the first place. I 
created the improved Csound 5 scons build system. I fixed a number of bugs. 
I contributed the C++ STK opcodes, fixed up the Loris opcodes for Csound 5, 
and contributed to the Fluidsynth opcode. I also developed the midiiinterop 
opcodes and the mixer opcodes. I contributed the Python wrappers and, of 
course, I contributed CsoundVST, which some people use as a GUI front end 
for Csound. CsoundVST contains an algorithmic composition system that is 
unique in computer music.

In addition to that, some years ago in the online Csound Magazine I 
published an article recommending future steps in Csound development. 
Virtually all of my recommendations have now been implemented, many of them 
by Istvan (he may or may not have read the article, I don't know).

And of course, for years I agitated for making Csound open source - so that 
if Istvan does fork Csound, it will be legal for him to do it! Though I 
don't think that would be wise.

If I have contributed less of late, that is not because I am lazy, but 
because Csound 5 has now approximated a condition I consider usable, so I 
have now returned to working on music and on algorithmic composition --  
these are the reasons that I contributed to Csound in the first place. It is 
for me an instrument, not an end in itself.

As I said in an earlier email, I think it is important to be able to tell 
the difference between anger at an action and anger at a person. I am angry 
at what Istvan did, but I am not so angry at Istvan personally that I do not 
credit or value his achievements.

>But until that actually happens I will continue
> to ignore you as you deserve it, and only then should I care about
> forking development.

My bottom line is this. I value Istvan's contributions and his competence, 
but I see no reason to tolerate, in a cooperative open source project, 
behavior such as unilaterally rejecting working code that does not break or 
interfere with existing code. We are not talking about lots of code here, 
folks!

If Istvan will stop meddling with my contributions, then I very much want 
him to continue as a Csound developer. If, however, he does not stop 
meddling with my contributions, then I do want his access to Csound CVS 
removed.

Just so it is crystal clear what is technically at issue here, I plan to 
contribute wrappers for the Csound API in Lisp CFFI, Python, Java, and Lua 
in the default distribution of Csound. This will involve also making a C++ 
wrapper, and introducing functions for manipulating Csound files in the API. 
This functionality already exists in CsoundVST. I plan to reduce the 
external dependencies to a minimum and move it into canonical Csound. It is 
a secondary issue to me whether the wrappers are in the Csound shared 
library (where I think it belongs) or in a separate library, as long as the 
wrappers are part of canonical Csound, in other words, as long as the 
wrappers end up in the installers for Csound.

The motivation for this contribution is musical -- to make it easier to 
compose music, to enlarge musical possibilities by making the full power of 
Csound directly accessible in programming languages commonly used by 
composers.

Sincerely,
Mike Gogins





-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

Michael Gogins wrote:

> I am not opposed to having the wrappers in a separate library, as long 
> as that library is part of the default distribution of Csound. I have 
> stated this previously.

So, then what is all the commotion about ? I did not remove your code,
just moved it to a separate library. While it is currently the already
existing CsoundVST shared library, it could of course be a new file that
contains the CppSound interface as well as any eventual wrappers and glue
code for high level languages, with an unlimited number of dependencies and
written entirely in C++ with templates as you wish. It is not uncommon
practice to provide a basic library with a plain C interface, and build
wrappers and external language bindings on top of that.


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

Michael Gogins wrote:

> Any Csound developer has the right to make contributions as long as they 
> compile and run and do not interfere with the contributions of others. 

Now what if you consider it a contribution to have a clean API library
with as few dependencies as possible (that is, preferably nothing more
than sndfile) ? Sometimes it may be possible to "interfere" by adding
something in a particular way.

> However, I don't think an objective observer would say that I have been 
> "lazily sitting around". I created the Csound API in the first place. I 
> created the improved Csound 5 scons build system. I fixed a number of 
> bugs. I contributed the C++ STK opcodes, fixed up the Loris opcodes for 
> Csound 5, and contributed to the Fluidsynth opcode. I also developed the 
> midiiinterop opcodes and the mixer opcodes. I contributed the Python 
> wrappers and, of course, I contributed CsoundVST, which some people use 
> as a GUI front end for Csound. CsoundVST contains an algorithmic 
> composition system that is unique in computer music.

Of course, this is all true, and by the way I also contributed quite a
few opcodes and even more bug fixes, as well as some language improvements,
but this is not what is really relevant.
It was in large part me who made the main library - the only place where
I actually care at all about what is added and what is not - usable by
(mostly, there is still some work to be done) completing the API, adding
missing functionality, turning stubs into actual functions, making it run
in multiple instances by removing countless static variables, improving
modularity, and cleaning up all the old cruft (remember macros like
#define ksmps cenviron.ksmps_ ?).

> And of course, for years I agitated for making Csound open source - so 
> that if Istvan does fork Csound, it will be legal for him to do it! 
> Though I don't think that would be wise.

It surely could have been wise if I did that instead of joining Csound 5
development; imagine a fork that has most of the contributions of the
current CVS sources, alongside with a canonical version that is not much
different from what it was a year ago. Of course, it is less attractive
to fork now given the maturity of Csound 5 now - it would be harder, but
not impossible to have competitive advantage. Anyway, I do not want to do
that, but if others force to do so by physically locking me out of
developlment, then, well, I have no choice other than doing my best to
beat something that has become much better due to my own work. How ironical.

> As I said in an earlier email, I think it is important to be able to 
> tell the difference between anger at an action and anger at a person. I 
> am angry at what Istvan did, but I am not so angry at Istvan personally 
> that I do not credit or value his achievements.

I do not doubt that you value whatever achievements by taking advantage
of them. This is understandable.

> If Istvan will stop meddling with my contributions, then I very much 
> want him to continue as a Csound developer. If, however, he does not 
> stop meddling with my contributions, then I do want his access to Csound 
> CVS removed.

I am not responding to threats of this type.


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

This is the opinion of a high-end user/frontend developper who can roll 
his own but has developped a sane aversion to the process. The Cs5 
engine builds easily and i must congratulate everyone for that. If i 
understand the issue of frontends correctly, ideally, binaries should 
come in all sorts of mixes for all platforms and be readily available 
for download.  If i want a CsoundVST option, mixed with a tcl/tk lib, I 
should be able to get that. If I prefer a LISP interpreter on top, I 
should be able to have that too.  I know this requires work. This is a 
community project and i am certain that many people will build from 
separate libraries to include the options they want.

Why not have a barebones engine sit in the distro, along with all 
libraries necessary to build custom versions. As people build different 
flavors, have them upload their binaries in a separate branch of the 
CVS (?). That is pretty much how the old bath ftp site worked and it 
was manageable.


j

__________________________________________
http://jeanpiche.com



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net