> From: Leo Sutic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > The history of this project showed pretty evidently how > COP-patterns > > applied to community building creates fragmentation and > isolation and > > friction. Toolkits might be technically easier to use to > achieve user > > goals but are bad for the evolution of a coherent and focused > > development community. > > OK, if I follow your reasoning correctly: > > + Inheritance requires design. > > + Composition requires less design.
I won't agree with the second statement. Everything requires design. Composition and Inheritance both require the same amount of design. In fact, finding the best balance between the two is the key to *good* design. Start with something concrete, and if it can be moved out and maintained separately as a tool, then you do it. Don't work the other way around. > + Design means that we have to come together on some issues. Absolutely. Amen. > + Thus, the less design we have to do, the less initial conflicts. And the longer it takes to learn to work together. Let's see if we can go from Apache's embarrassment to their poster-child. > + So that's why a "several toolkit" approach, where everyone > just shoots off their own little corner of Avalon and builds > stuff is so tempting. And not helpful. Esp. when we have more than one toolkit that performs the same basic function. > + But with everyone in their own corner, we're not really > getting a community. Right. At this point community is paramount. You might be amazed at how quickly the product comes together after the community is built. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
