[bt-devel] BibleTime2? (was: Re: KHTML news)

[Troy A. Griffitts]

Dear Eeli,

You can have a look at our roadmap for the engine, which should give you an
idea of many things we think our engine lacks:

http://crosswire.org/bugs/secure/BrowseProject.jspa?id=10005&report=roadmap&subset=-1

Hope this is useful.  The order is not set in stone, so if there are any
items of interested, we'd love to have the help!

  -Troy.



Eeli Kaikkonen <eekaikko at mail.student.oulu.fi> wrote: 
>(I hope we all read bt-devel? I don't like double messages.)
>
>On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Martin Gruner wrote:
>> thought that we cannot reasonably start this project because we don't
>have
>> enough resources for it (unless you or someone wants to go full-time or a
>few
>
>That has been quite clear to me.
>
>> Also, my hope still is that
>> things change at sword (most important: frequent releases) so that we
>don't
>> need an own backend.
>
>I would like to see what Sword lacks. I have myself already seen that
>the Sword project is quite slow, not so well organized and there
>is no QA or anything like that (sorry if this hurt someone but this is
>how I see it), but I would like to know what more experienced people
>think about it technically.
>
>> process of slow refactoring, still adding a feature here and there. At
>least
>> you (Eeli) know BT's code now quite well, and I'm sure you already have a
>few
>> ideas what could be improved. During this process we can try to slowly
>reduce
>> the KDE parts of BibleTime in favor of QT.
>
>That was in my mind.
>
>> Maybe we'll even reach a point
>> when 1.x will be cross-platform.
>
>That would be OK for me. Actually that would be very nice because it
>would be much less work than new codebase. It would also remove the need
>of two simultaneous forks.
>
>> So, Eeli, Jeremy, and others: What do you think? Would you agree? Or
>would you
>> make different suggestions?
>
>> P.S. If we agree we should start a page in the wiki which lists small,
>> well-defined subprojects for the refactoring / feature adding phase.
>
>Yes, that was also something I thought about. Many thoughts which I have
>given in wiki regarding BT2 can be applied to BT1 as well. Here are some
>other examples:
>
>- Configuration system does not feel very sound
>- I hate modal dialogs
>- Backend files should be refactored into subdirectories (I don't
>  know them but it's not fun to see all of them in one directory)
>- Starting editing Personal commentary is not easy
>
>Maybe we could use SourceForge Tasks for a well-defined task list and
>wiki for more general ideas and discussion? Or is a formal task
>management a la SF an overkill for our needs?
>
>
>  Yours,
>        Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland
>        e-mail: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)
>
>_______________________________________________
>bt-devel mailing list
>bt-devel at crosswire.org
>http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/bt-devel
>
>