Re: FastCGI Anyone???

Dave,

This is a sensitive subject, but since you have brought this up two
times now in separate discussions, I will lay out my position:

You are absolutely right on both accounts. But when you say it is "not
true" (indicating a desire to support), but then immediately come back
with not willing to "sink a lot of my unpaid time into new development"
- you are sending a *mixed* message to anyone that has the desire to
use, or even get started with the lib.

Just like a job interview - What do you want to do in 2 years? Wait!
Your not committed to this project?!?! Why again should we work
together?

I for one am more than willing to "pay" for something that works - and
is supported. We pay for the TclDevKit because we know we can count on
them to be there when we have a problem (and they are awsome!) - and we
have even donated to projects that we use and want to let the developer
know we appreciate their efforts (I even owe a few developers a dinner
or two - which I will catch them up on very soon). We have even
contributed code; although it is not near as masterfully done as what
you and others do - but I try to support the community as much as the
next guy, and evangalize Tcl at every turn - and our customers are
outright impressed with what Tcl can do... (and usually purchase
TclDevKit or adopt Tcl for various projects).

But it is hard to put our eggs, and our customers eggs, in to a basket
without knowing that there is a future for what we are trying to do.
Specifically, we can't put out one level of awsome performance - which
I think Rivet would provide; and then slow our users/customers down by
a factor of 5-10x later because there is no active support or interest
in supporting it at a future date, having to go back to old ways of
doing things.

I personally wish that this pacakge (Rivet) would become part of the
TclLib and be in/supported for the long haul. It looks great, I have
not tested it because I do not want to get my hopes up if it worked
incredibly well.

I am sure that this point would raise tons of debate - and I am *not*
looking for an arguement, only pointing out that it is hard to commit
to something that does not appear (openly/realistically) to have the
full support of evolving the technology as the technology evolves.

What would you do if you were in my shoes?

Dave
Received on Mon Nov 21 00:37:02 2005