> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Bruce Van Allen wrote:
> > Instead, an extensible framework, within a DT::Business or DT::Fiscal
> > namespace, could grow incrementally, under the discipline of avoiding
> > the creeping redundancy starting to infect the DT project.
I'd suggest that someone runs this like a sub-DT project. With a single voice trying
to unify things
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> As to creeping redundancy, I don't see any big problems with that _yet_,
> but I am seeing a tendency on lots of people's parts here to want to
> over-engineer the heck out of everything.
I'm trying to remember who said the problem with software engineers is they are used
to the complexity (Gosling?).
This is why I suggested a DT::Util. At the moment its everybody implementing Iso week
handling but the list _is_ growing.
>
> A good example was the recent discussion of custom locales, which got way
> too complicated _before_ any code had even been released! Working, useful
> code first, then fancy ultra-powerful code. I think the evolution of the
> DateTime.pm module is a good example. The first version did things _I_
> thought were useful. It's grown since then based on feedback from others
> about the things they needed.
I agree with some reservations. I think discussing feature lists before hand is a
good thing{TM}. Otherwise you can end up with pretty inconsistent APIs. What we
haven't been doing is talking about milestones for releases with X functionality.
So the questions we need to be asking is "what is the minimum needed to release this?"
> For now, I see two really important areas for business that should be
> addressed.
< 1. & 2. - agreed >
> Implementing both of those, and making sure they work together, would
> provide some great building blocks for additional functionality, and would
> satisfy a lot of people.
A validator would be simple too.
Cheers,
-J
--
