View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
dubuila
Joined: 22 Aug 2006 Posts: 28
|
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:52 am Post subject: Tango Mango |
|
|
Hello,
Sory for this question but what is Tango compared to Mango ?
Cheers,
Laurent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
snoyberg
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 10
|
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:37 am Post subject: Re: Tango Mango |
|
|
dubuila wrote: | Sory for this question but what is Tango compared to Mango ? |
Mango is a discontinued project. Tango is being actively developed. Other than that, I can't help you: I wasn't around in the days of Mango.
Michael |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kris
Joined: 27 Mar 2004 Posts: 1494 Location: South Pacific
|
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: Re: Tango Mango |
|
|
snoyberg wrote: | dubuila wrote: | Sory for this question but what is Tango compared to Mango ? |
Mango is a discontinued project. Tango is being actively developed. Other than that, I can't help you: I wasn't around in the days of Mango.
Michael |
Er, that's entirely incorrect Michael
Tango contains a significant subset of Mango, perhaps half? The rest of Mango is entirely independent and will remain so. We're talking all the server software, clustering, Servlet engine, Sax engine, etc etc.
All of the above have been 'adjusted' to operate atop of Tango, so the two projects are fully aligned.
At this time, we're deciding whether to move this updated Mango code into a new repository, or simply (*cough*) branch the original Mango Tree and use Trunk to contain the updated code only. This would have been worked out before, but focus has been elsewhere: I'm sure you can understand
Two takeaway items:
1) the high level Mango entities are fully compatible with Tango, and can be used alongside it without issue. This aspect of Mango makes it "Tango Certified" if you like.
2) Tango itself will avoid adopting lots of interesting but perhaps ancilliary code as core functionality. This is intended to retain a sense of coherence and compactness within Tango, whilst leaving the door open for competing add-ons (such as alternate server implementations).
What do you think? Should we place the Tango certified code in a seperate project, or branch the current Mango codebase, and place the Tango compatible code here instead? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
larsivi Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2004 Posts: 453 Location: Trondheim, Norway
|
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure Mango is discontinued just yet - although it has had fairly few updates lately.
Tango has much of the (especially base) functionality in Mango, and more advanced parts made to be Tango compatible can be found in the tango.mango project.
I'm not fully sure if there are any exceptions to the above, though. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
teqdruid
Joined: 11 May 2004 Posts: 390 Location: UMD
|
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I think the main question is this: is anyone interested in maintaining a version of Mango that works with Phobos? I'm not interested, and I doubt Kris is. If nobody is interested, then we should branch Mango and make Mango a Tango-compat library. If, however, there is a significant number of people who want to continue using Mango with Phobos and a few of them want to maintain Mango, then I think the Tango-compat library should be moved else where.
I think we'd be charlie-foxtrot if we tried to host and maintain to different versions of Mango (Tango-compat and Phobos) in the same project, especially since Kris and myself probably have very little interest in the Phobos version. So, my vote is to branch Mango to a Phobos branch (probably to be considered deprecated) and continue Mango as a Tango-compat library. I think most Mango users will become Tango users, so I doubt there will be much interest in adding updates to a Phobos branch.
~John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dubuila
Joined: 22 Aug 2006 Posts: 28
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let's say :
If I'm interested by the Logger, the SAx, the Server part of Mango and only doing the import from mango. it is better for me to start referencing Tango rather than Phobos.
But I'm still able to reference Phobos is I think some part are faster, safer or any other reasons.
I will reread the .announce list information in order to better understand why Tango and not Phobos. I think there is a post why not enhance phobos rather than building tnago.
Cheers,
Laurent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|