Hi,
On 23 Oct 2005, at 19:20, Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Just because of its importance, you agree that it is important
don't you ;) we should follow our usual and well proven development
patterns which involves community involvement.
FWIW, Sylvain showed quite a few people an example of this
functionality at the hackathon, and I think we all said "ooh, please
commit it ASAP!" at the time.
So there was some community involvement (though I know there's no
substitute for doing it on the list, where the whole community can see).
And what is much worse: we never remove anything.
So, taking DB-handling as an example: in the databases block we
have ESQL, modular DB modules and actions and the SQLTransformer,
three different approaches to do the same thing, all of them
considered to be obsolete. Furthermore we have the OJB block that
is still another and maybe better way of handling DBs, and now we
have your new stuff.
... which makes me think that actually we should have an article
explaining the differences between them all, and why you might use
each block in a given context.
* New kind of functionality should (in general) go to new blocks.
* New blocks should go through some incubation process, starting in
the whiteboard and needing a small community and a vote to get out
from there.
Agreed to both of these.
* We really need to get rid of obsolete stuff. Must really every
single block go to 2.2? Are there some oneman shows that better
could be returned to their creator and driven on source forge or
Cocoon-dev?
Hmm. I'm not convinced of this. The problem is that we can't
anticipate which blocks our users want, they may have perfectly valid
reasons for using e.g. the SQL Transformer (even if we wished they
didn't). I don't know how we can remove historical functionality
without upsetting -someone-. I'm not sure how this can be solved ...
Andrew.
--
Andrew Savory, Managing Director, Luminas Limited
Tel: +44 (0)870 741 6658 Fax: +44 (0)700 598 1135
Web: http://www.luminas.co.uk/
Orixo alliance: http://www.orixo.com/
