[admin] Closer Project Proposal

[Pascal Costanza]

Hi,

I have a proposal for hosting the following project on common-lisp.net:

- Name of the project: "Closer"

- Description: This project is an umbrella project for a few 
subprojects whose aim is to improve the usability of the CLOS MOP 
across different Common Lisp implementations. The first step (which 
already exists to a large degree) is a library that checks what 
features of the AMOP specification is supported by a given CL 
implementation. This results in a number of keywords that describe the 
various aspects of a MOP which can, for example, be used to 
conditionalize one's source code (when added to *features*).

The second step (which exists as a rough sketch) is a compatibility 
library that provides a package that adds missing features and/or 
replaces existing features with versions that better reflect the AMOP 
specs. If the latter is not possible, I try to provide utility 
functions that allow one to work around restrictions. (If you're 
interested, I can give an example of what I have in mind.)

Finally, the Closer project should host a few example metaclasses, 
including some of the examples given in AMOP, and probably others as 
well. For example, my goal is to move some of the stuff from AspectL to 
the Closer project in order to turn this into a more coherent library. 
It is important to provide example applications of the MOP because they 
implicitly provide test cases against which new MOP implementations can 
be checked for compatibility.

So in the long run, the Closer project should help to bring the MOP 
into a shape that Common Lisp programmers can better rely on across 
many implementations.

- Currently, I am the only member of the project but the goal is to 
involve other people, especially implementers of CLOS. My own code is 
to be licensed under a creative commons license - see 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ - if other code is 
submitted I will make sure that it is compatible with that license or 
with other reasonably "free" licenses, including BSD, MIT, LGPL and 
LLGPL. When in doubt (for example with problematic licenses like GPL) I 
would want to contact you to discuss this. In general, I prefer 
licenses that can be used both in an open source and in a commercial 
context at the same time.

OK, I hope that you'll find this admittedly vague description 
acceptable. ;)


All the best,
Pascal

--
Any sufficently complicated Java program requires a programmable IDE to 
make up for the half of Common Lisp not implemented in the  program 
itself. - Peter Seibel