On Monday 23 July 2007 13:15, Alexandru Stanoi wrote: > Frederik Holljen wrote: > >> I'm for option 3 as well, but what Kore suggests here is going to be a > >> pain in making the packages, as this doesn't follow any of the > >> guidelines that we have. We should so something about the names of > >> those script components though, like Tobias suggests. > > > > Well, that is the question. Is it doable? If not there is no point voting > > on it :) If it is doable I suggest that we name the packages Scripts. E.g > > - DatabaseSchemaScripts > > - PersistentObjectScripts > > Are there many scripts for each component? I just thought there is only > one for DatabaseSchema to load and save schemas. > > If there is only one script per component then I don't see the need to > create a new component to wrap around that script.
You'll never know this up front of course as we can always add more scripts later. For dbschema there are currently five scripts planned. (see design doc posted..). I agree with you, I'd rather see one of the options where the scripts come with the package but with extra requirements for the scripts (since they can check it themselves and just tell the user if they are not met). Anyway, that is left for the voting, we're just working out option 3 first :) Cheers, Frederik -- Components mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
