[lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
32 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved

Marvin Humphrey
Greets,

A few hours ago, the existing implementation of the Clownfish parser was
swapped out for one based on Flex and the Lemon parser generator, eliminating
Lucy's dependency on the CPAN module Parse::RecDescent.

As of today, the Lucy mainline no longer has any non-core Perl dependencies,
and all of the licensing and legal issues that needed to be resolved during
Lucy's incubation have been resolved.

The Flex/Lemon-based parser has an additional benefit: it is much faster than
the Parse::RecDescent based version.  The Clownfish compiler now parses all of
those .cfh files in core/ in under a second -- a task that used to take
approximately 15-20 seconds.  Between that and several other other changes
from the last few months, the build time for Lucy has improved dramatically
since release 0.1.0, dropping from just over three minutes to just over a
minute and a half.

Marvin Humphrey

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved

Torsten Curdt-2
Great news! Congrats!

So when/how can we start with the ObjC support then? ;)

cheers,
Torsten

....and back to lurk mode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[lucy-dev] [DISCUSS] Graduation (was Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved)

Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
In reply to this post by Marvin Humphrey
Marvin,

That's amazing!

As soon as I VOTE on the latest RC, I'm going to recommend that the Lucy
community over the next month seriously consider graduating from the Incubator.

You've fulfilled pretty much the mantra that you set out in the Incubator:

- elected new committers
- had > 1 release manager (nice job Peter!)
- made releases
- cleaned up licensing issues

You guys are ready for prime time. What do others think? I raised this
issue a few months ago and the major thing I remember that was raised
was this licensing issue.


Cheers,
Chris

On Oct 27, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:

> Greets,
>
> A few hours ago, the existing implementation of the Clownfish parser was
> swapped out for one based on Flex and the Lemon parser generator, eliminating
> Lucy's dependency on the CPAN module Parse::RecDescent.
>
> As of today, the Lucy mainline no longer has any non-core Perl dependencies,
> and all of the licensing and legal issues that needed to be resolved during
> Lucy's incubation have been resolved.
>
> The Flex/Lemon-based parser has an additional benefit: it is much faster than
> the Parse::RecDescent based version.  The Clownfish compiler now parses all of
> those .cfh files in core/ in under a second -- a task that used to take
> approximately 15-20 seconds.  Between that and several other other changes
> from the last few months, the build time for Lucy has improved dramatically
> since release 0.1.0, dropping from just over three minutes to just over a
> minute and a half.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: [hidden email]
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lucy-dev] [DISCUSS] Graduation (was Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved)

Torsten Curdt-2
> As soon as I VOTE on the latest RC, I'm going to recommend that the Lucy
> community over the next month seriously consider graduating from the Incubator.
>
> You've fulfilled pretty much the mantra that you set out in the Incubator:
>
> - elected new committers
> - had > 1 release manager (nice job Peter!)
> - made releases
> - cleaned up licensing issues

Commit mails on markmail.org still show mostly "just" Marvin.
Or what am I missing?

> You guys are ready for prime time. What do others think? I raised this
> issue a few months ago and the major thing I remember that was raised
> was this licensing issue.

That and not enough active committers.
Doesn't look like the latter has changed yet.

cheers,
Torsten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lucy-dev] [DISCUSS] Graduation (was Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved)

Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
On Oct 27, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:

>> As soon as I VOTE on the latest RC, I'm going to recommend that the Lucy
>> community over the next month seriously consider graduating from the Incubator.
>>
>> You've fulfilled pretty much the mantra that you set out in the Incubator:
>>
>> - elected new committers
>> - had > 1 release manager (nice job Peter!)
>> - made releases
>> - cleaned up licensing issues
>
> Commit mails on markmail.org still show mostly "just" Marvin.
> Or what am I missing?

Commits aren't the only sign of community. They also aren't the only
sustaining thing you need. You need:

* VOTEs
* discussion emails
* JIRA threads
* release managers
* documentation writers, etc.

For the above:

I've seen Peter, David, Nathan, Joe (S.) and a host of other folks
contribute.


>
>> You guys are ready for prime time. What do others think? I raised this
>> issue a few months ago and the major thing I remember that was raised
>> was this licensing issue.
>
> That and not enough active committers.
> Doesn't look like the latter has changed yet.

And committers != PMC != community.

The VOTE is to decide on whether or not Lucy has:

* elected new (P)PMC members
* shown that it can govern itself
* made releases
* vetted its licenses
* operated in the Apache way

I'd say it has.

Cheers,
Chris

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: [hidden email]
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lucy-dev] [DISCUSS] Graduation (was Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved)

Torsten Curdt-2
>> Commit mails on markmail.org still show mostly "just" Marvin.
>> Or what am I missing?
>
> Commits aren't the only sign of community. They also aren't the only
> sustaining thing you need. You need:
>
> * VOTEs
> * discussion emails
> * JIRA threads
> * release managers
> * documentation writers, etc.

These things you need on top, indeed :)

> I've seen Peter, David, Nathan, Joe (S.) and a host of other folks
> contribute.

That's all and great but this falls down as soon as Marvin (for
whatever reason) would be gone.

Graduation is also about build a sustainable community - not a single
person doing the coding.
And frankly speaking I am lurking on the dev list and didn't see that
many discussion emails.

As much as I would love to see lucy graduate I still think it's not ready.

> And committers != PMC != community.

nitpicking: whether committers != PMC depends on the project, it's the
same for some projects

> The VOTE is to decide on whether or not Lucy has:
>
> * elected new (P)PMC members
> * shown that it can govern itself
> * made releases
> * vetted its licenses
> * operated in the Apache way
>
> I'd say it has.

Well, and I am saying this is not a diverse community - which also one
of the goals of incubation. A single person committing on a TLP is not
quite the Apache way I know.

Frankly - I don't understand the rush.

cheers,
Torsten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved

Marvin Humphrey
In reply to this post by Torsten Curdt-2
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:42:20AM +0200, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> So when/how can we start with the ObjC support then? ;)

A volunteer for an additional host binding language could begin work at any
time.  Alternatively, you can wait while we continue the process of
restructuring and refactoring with the goal of making binding easier.

It's my understanding that all of our prospective ObjC volunteers have decided
to lurk until they don't have to read/write any Perl to achieve their
objectives, and therefore they are still blocked by
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCY-142>, "Port Clownfish compiler to
C".  Nevertheless, the Flex/Lemon parser was a subtask of LUCY-142 which just
happened to kill multiple birds with one stone :) -- so we are making
progress.  Development resources continue to be directed towards porting
rather than other goals such as speed or search-related features.

After LUCY-142, other plans include...

  * Have Charmonizer generate a monolithic C file.
  * Move everything under trunk/core/Lucy/Object under clownfish/.  This
    will allow a porter to write bindings for only a dozen or so classes
    before having to tackle bindings for all of Lucy.
  * Add a language other than ObjC, probably Tcl.

Each item we check off from that list represents an opportunity to jump in and
get started.

In conclusion, I'd like to reiterate an assertion from a few days ago:

Lucy is easy to use.  It is not yet easy to hack on, but we know how to change
that and in time we will succeed.

Marvin Humphrey

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lucy-dev] [DISCUSS] Graduation (was Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved)

Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
In reply to this post by Torsten Curdt-2
On Oct 27, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:

>>> Commit mails on markmail.org still show mostly "just" Marvin.
>>> Or what am I missing?
>>
>> Commits aren't the only sign of community. They also aren't the only
>> sustaining thing you need. You need:
>>
>> * VOTEs
>> * discussion emails
>> * JIRA threads
>> * release managers
>> * documentation writers, etc.
>
> That's all and great but this falls down as soon as Marvin (for
> whatever reason) would be gone.

I wholly disagree with you.

[...]

> As much as I would love to see lucy graduate I still think it's not ready.
>
> Well, and I am saying this is not a diverse community - which also one
> of the goals of incubation. A single person committing on a TLP is not
> quite the Apache way I know.
>
> Frankly - I don't understand the rush.

What rush? I raised this issue months ago, and we actually had some discussions
about it. Most folks in the community agreed that the remaining item to check off
was the licensing issues.

http://s.apache.org/a08

Months is not a rush.

Go read the Lucy reports: the project has been in Incubation
since July 2010: so it's been about 1 year, 3 months. Every project has a different
amount of time in Incubation and every project has a checklist of things to get done
before graduating. I think we've met that checklist.

Cheers,
Chris

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: [hidden email]
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lucy-dev] [DISCUSS] Graduation (was Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved)

Torsten Curdt-2
>> That's all and great but this falls down as soon as Marvin (for
>> whatever reason) would be gone.
>
> I wholly disagree with you.

Right. So then there would be just no one committing?
Please explain how that should work from your POV.

>> Frankly - I don't understand the rush.
>
> What rush? I raised this issue months ago, and we actually had some discussions
> about it. Most folks in the community agreed that the remaining item to check off
> was the licensing issues.

Unfortunately in terms of diversity not that much seems to have changed since.

> http://s.apache.org/a08

...even with the new committer on board.

> Months is not a rush.

You are pushing for it - and I don't get why.

> Go read the Lucy reports: the project has been in Incubation
> since July 2010: so it's been about 1 year, 3 months. Every project has a different
> amount of time in Incubation

Exactly. So let's give it the time it needs. What's so bad if it takes 3 years?
Just bringing this up every other month does not bring it any closer
to a successful graduation.

> and every project has a checklist of things to get done
> before graduating. I think we've met that checklist.

Quoting from the incubator guide at
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html

"The project is considered to have a diverse community when it is not
highly dependent on any single contributor (there are at least 3
legally independent committers and there is no single company or
entity that is vital to the success of the project)"

That's just not the case yet.

cheers,
Torsten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved

Torsten Curdt-2
In reply to this post by Marvin Humphrey
> A volunteer for an additional host binding language could begin work at any
> time.  Alternatively, you can wait while we continue the process of
> restructuring and refactoring with the goal of making binding easier.
>
> It's my understanding that all of our prospective ObjC volunteers have decided
> to lurk until they don't have to read/write any Perl to achieve their
> objectives, and therefore they are still blocked by
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCY-142>, "Port Clownfish compiler to
> C".  Nevertheless, the Flex/Lemon parser was a subtask of LUCY-142 which just
> happened to kill multiple birds with one stone :) -- so we are making
> progress.

Cool. Thanks for the update!

>  Development resources continue to be directed towards porting
> rather than other goals such as speed or search-related features.
>
> After LUCY-142, other plans include...
>
>  * Have Charmonizer generate a monolithic C file.
>  * Move everything under trunk/core/Lucy/Object under clownfish/.  This
>    will allow a porter to write bindings for only a dozen or so classes
>    before having to tackle bindings for all of Lucy.
>  * Add a language other than ObjC, probably Tcl.

Tcl? Not saying that ObjC is the first choice but wouldn't be
something more... hm.. how do I say it... :)

...wouldn't be python or ruby attracting a couple of more folks?

> Each item we check off from that list represents an opportunity to jump in and
> get started.

Naaa, I will also wait until the port is semi-finished (sorry, not a perl guy :)

> Lucy is easy to use.  It is not yet easy to hack on, but we know how to change
> that and in time we will succeed.

Looking forward to it!

cheers,
Torsten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lucy-dev] [DISCUSS] Graduation (was Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved)

Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
In reply to this post by Torsten Curdt-2


Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 27, 2011, at 6:28 PM, "Torsten Curdt" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>> That's all and great but this falls down as soon as Marvin (for
>>> whatever reason) would be gone.
>>
>> I wholly disagree with you.
>
> Right. So then there would be just no one committing?
> Please explain how that should work from your POV.

Committing isn't the only contribution.

>
>>> Frankly - I don't understand the rush.
>>
>> What rush? I raised this issue months ago, and we actually had some discussions
>> about it. Most folks in the community agreed that the remaining item to check off
>> was the licensing issues.
>
> Unfortunately in terms of diversity not that much seems to have changed since.
>
>> http://s.apache.org/a08
>
> ...even with the new committer on board.

Says you. You were trolling then and you are again.

>
>> Months is not a rush.
>
> You are pushing for it - and I don't get why.
>

You probably don't.

Every mentor should be asking the question periodically if their podlings are ready to graduate.

>> Go read the Lucy reports: the project has been in Incubation
>> since July 2010: so it's been about 1 year, 3 months. Every project has a different
>> amount of time in Incubation
>
> Exactly. So let's give it the time it needs. What's so bad if it takes 3 years?

That's not a sustainable model for the incubator.

> Just bringing this up every other month does not bring it any closer
> to a successful graduation.

Try 3 months.


>
>> and every project has a checklist of things to get done
>> before graduating. I think we've met that checklist.
>
> Quoting from the incubator guide at
> Snip...
> That's just not the case yet.

Says you with absolutely 0 merit in this community besides lurking.

Sorry but we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved

David E. Wheeler
In reply to this post by Torsten Curdt-2
On Oct 27, 2011, at 6:30 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:

> Tcl? Not saying that ObjC is the first choice but wouldn't be
> something more... hm.. how do I say it... :)
>
> ...wouldn't be python or ruby attracting a couple of more folks?

Well, we currently have a committer, Brad Harder, who is very interested in a Tcl port and has been working with Marvin on IRC to figure out what's needed. I know, crazy, right? But you take em as you get em, and Brad is pretty awesome.

So yeah, unless someone else steps up wanting to port to another language with the same level of engagement, it will likely be Tcl.

Personally I'd love to see Objective C, but not having an immediate need for it and a severe lack of tuits (not to mention minimal C skillz), I won't be able to work on it. But I'm sure someone will soon.

Best,

David

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[lucy-dev] C implementation [was Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved]

Peter Karman
In reply to this post by Marvin Humphrey
Marvin Humphrey wrote on 10/27/11 5:31 PM:

> Greets,
>
> A few hours ago, the existing implementation of the Clownfish parser was
> swapped out for one based on Flex and the Lemon parser generator, eliminating
> Lucy's dependency on the CPAN module Parse::RecDescent.
>
> As of today, the Lucy mainline no longer has any non-core Perl dependencies,
> and all of the licensing and legal issues that needed to be resolved during
> Lucy's incubation have been resolved.
>

awesome. really. great work, Marvin.

/me raises toast

With that out of the way, I propose a host language implementation in C to go
along with the existing Perl implementation. I'm volunteering to lead that
effort. I think a C implementation can be useful on its own and as a learning
process for How to Write a Lucy Implementation.

I will happily advocate for a Lucy graduation VOTE once we have another language
complete.

Who's with me?

--
Peter Karman  .  http://peknet.com/  .  [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lucy-dev] [DISCUSS] Graduation (was Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved)

Nathan Kurz
In reply to this post by Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
I have no particular opinion on this matter, but please take the rest
of this conversation to private email.  The tone is poor, and I don't
think it reflects well on Lucy.

Nathan Kurz
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lucy-dev] C implementation [was Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved]

Marvin Humphrey
In reply to this post by Peter Karman
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:26:02PM -0500, Peter Karman wrote:
> /me raises toast

/me quaffs deeply

> With that out of the way, I propose a host language implementation in C to go
> along with the existing Perl implementation. I'm volunteering to lead that
> effort. I think a C implementation can be useful on its own and as a learning
> process for How to Write a Lucy Implementation.
>
> I will happily advocate for a Lucy graduation VOTE once we have another language
> complete.
 
+1

This will be fun.  :)  C is an interesting choice for a second language.  Lucy
is still designed for OO dynamic languages, and the interface will never feel
exactly like the C from k&r.

> Who's with me?

Huzzah!

First suggestion: start with an svn copy of "trunk/example-lang" to "trunk/c"?
Also, consider screwing up several times to get your commit numbers up,
preferably on line endings so that you get svn blame/credit for every line of
every file after the fix. ;)

Second task: probably build and run Charmonizer.  Basically port
trunk/ruby/Rakefile to the build language of your choice, which was GNU Make
if I recall correctly.  (The same content is in the Perl build, but alongside
a lot of other stuff, which is why I suggest working off the Ruby build.)

It may be hard/awkward/impossible to do everything we need with Make.  We
still have to run the Clownfish compiler from Perl right now, so when we get
to that, we'll need a Perl script that we can run from Make.

Marvin Humphrey

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lucy-dev] [DISCUSS] Graduation (was Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved)

Torsten Curdt-2
In reply to this post by Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
>> Right. So then there would be just no one committing?
>> Please explain how that should work from your POV.
>
> Committing isn't the only contribution.

That doesn't answer the question and you know it.

>> Unfortunately in terms of diversity not that much seems to have changed since.
>>
>>> http://s.apache.org/a08
>>
>> ...even with the new committer on board.
>
> Says you. You were trolling then and you are again.

Just calling me a troll does not make this go away.

>> You are pushing for it - and I don't get why.
>
> You probably don't.

No, and you don't help by not giving a reason.

>> Exactly. So let's give it the time it needs. What's so bad if it takes 3 years?
>
> That's not a sustainable model for the incubator.

So far we have been OK. We had other podlings that also took their time needed.

>> Quoting from the incubator guide at
>> Snip...
>> That's just not the case yet.
>
> Says you with absolutely 0 merit in this community besides lurking.

As a member of the ASF and a member of the incubator PMC I am voicing
my concerns.
You just call me troll and don't adress my concerns at all.

> Sorry but we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Maybe we should take this offline.

cheers,
Torsten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lucy-dev] C implementation [was Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved]

Torsten Curdt-2
In reply to this post by Peter Karman
> With that out of the way, I propose a host language implementation in C to go
> along with the existing Perl implementation. I'm volunteering to lead that
> effort. I think a C implementation can be useful on its own and as a learning
> process for How to Write a Lucy Implementation.
>
> I will happily advocate for a Lucy graduation VOTE once we have another language
> complete.
>
> Who's with me?

Sounds great!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved

Torsten Curdt-2
In reply to this post by David E. Wheeler
>> ...wouldn't be python or ruby attracting a couple of more folks?
>
> Well, we currently have a committer, Brad Harder, who is very interested in a Tcl port and has been working with Marvin on IRC to figure out what's needed. I know, crazy, right? But you take em as you get em, and Brad is pretty awesome.

Wow. OK :)

> So yeah, unless someone else steps up wanting to port to another language with the same level of engagement, it will likely be Tcl.
>
> Personally I'd love to see Objective C, but not having an immediate need for it and a severe lack of tuits (not to mention minimal C skillz), I won't be able to work on it. But I'm sure someone will soon.

Maybe I can follow along his efforts for the Objective C part.
No promises - but might be the missing part for me that is enough to
start actually helping.

cheers,
Torsten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved

Andrew S. Townley
Hi guys,

On 28 Oct 2011, at 08:38 a.m., Torsten Curdt <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>> ...wouldn't be python or ruby attracting a couple of more folks?
>>
>> Well, we currently have a committer, Brad Harder, who is very interested in a Tcl port and has been working with Marvin on IRC to figure out what's needed. I know, crazy, right? But you take em as you get em, and Brad is pretty awesome.
>
> Wow. OK :)
>
>> So yeah, unless someone else steps up wanting to port to another language with the same level of engagement, it will likely be Tcl.
>>
>> Personally I'd love to see Objective C, but not having an immediate need for it and a severe lack of tuits (not to mention minimal C skillz), I won't be able to work on it. But I'm sure someone will soon.
>
> Maybe I can follow along his efforts for the Objective C part.
> No promises - but might be the missing part for me that is enough to
> start actually helping.

I realise this has little weight since all I can do is talk about it right now, but I think a vanilla C approach would kill more birds, as you could then use it rather easily in C, C++ and Objective C without further effort. It wouldn't have class and implementation files, but adding those would be a different layer as I understand.

My own project hasn't gone near the full text engine for nearly a year, so I haven't been able to make any progress on anything Lucy. :(

Something is likely better than nothing....

Cheers,

ast
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved

Torsten Curdt-2
>>> Personally I'd love to see Objective C, but not having an immediate need for it and a severe lack of tuits (not to mention minimal C skillz), I won't be able to work on it. But I'm sure someone will soon.
>>
>> Maybe I can follow along his efforts for the Objective C part.
>> No promises - but might be the missing part for me that is enough to
>> start actually helping.
>
> I realise this has little weight since all I can do is talk about it right now, but I think a vanilla C approach would kill more birds, as you could then use it rather easily in C, C++ and Objective C without further effort. It wouldn't have class and implementation files, but adding those would be a different layer as I understand.

Indeed. That's another option. After all we could then also just wrap
the C stuff up into a ObjC API.

cheers,
Torsten
12