I think splitting this up is a good thing, and at first sight I thought it was overkill to make 3 micro packages, but when thinking twice I believe it is indeed the way to go:
- Having StateVar into its own module will hopefully promote its reuse by other imperative wrapper libs which currently all have their own custom code.
- I usually tend to rewrite my own strict vectors but I would prefer to reuse the ones defined in OpenGL, so definitely these should go into a package. It would also be nice to have another package that makes Data.VectorSpace instances for each of these types. I have no idea about a good package name :(
- I'm not sure about the ObjectName package, but it certainly does not belong in any of the previous two packages, so it should go into another package.
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Sven Panne
<Sven.Panne@aedion.de> wrote:
I'd like to get some feedback from the Haskell community about some packaging
issues, so here is my problem: As a medium-term goal, I'd like to decouple the
OpenAL/ALUT packages from the OpenGL package, because there are very sensible
use cases where you might need some sound, but not OpenGL. The current
coupling has mostly historic reasons.
The OpenAL package depends on the OpenGL package in 3 areas:
* OpenAL uses OpenGL's notion of StateVars all over the place.
* OpenAL's Buffer and Source are instances of OpenGL's ObjectName class.
* OpenAL's sources and listeners have some properties like velocity,
orientation, direction and position which are modeled by OpenGL's Vector3 and
Vertex3 data types.
The ALUT package depends on the OpenGL package because of GettableStateVars.
The packages are supposed to fit nicely together, so using the same types is a
must, but the actual packaging is not nice. So the obvious idea is to
introduce 3 new packages which lift out functionality from the OpenGL package:
* a small "StateVar" package, consisting only of OpenGL's StateVar module
(in a better place in the name hierarchy, of course, perhaps "Data.StateVar"?)
* a tiny "ObjectName" package, consisting only of OpenGL's ObjectName class
(In "Data.ObjectName"? I'm not very sure about a good place in the hierarchy
here.)
* a package containing most of the data types/newtypes in OpenGL's
VertexSpec module (Vertex{2,3,4}, Color{3,4}, etc.) plus instances for the
base classes like Eq, Ord, Show, etc. I really don't know a good name for this
package and what a good place in the hierarchy would be (probably something
like "Data.Foo", but what is Foo?)
The point is: The first two package would be very small. Would this be OK?
Does anybody see other alternatives? What would be good names for those
packages and where in the naming hierarchy should they really go?
Cheers,
S.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe