On (08/26/07 13:25), Artem Kachitchkine wrote: > > My point is that there is not need for upcalls, intermediary agents or > trips between the spaces. >
sure, and there is probably a much more elegant solution available, which would make smf much more usable for more than just Brussels. What Brussels is hoping to do is to define the interfaces so that, when we come up with the more elegant solution, we don't have to make some seismic changes to the rest of the Brussels architecture.. > Thanks for the detailed response, it helps me understand where the team > stands. I still feel that we're somewhat missing the forest behind the > trees, that the preexisting ideas are too specific to be used as a basis > for new designs, but hey, I'm quirky and green behind the ears, so I'll > shut up :) no problem! Questioning preexisting ideas is a pre-requisite for thinking out of the box, and coming up with better solutions. --Sowmini
