On Wednesday 04 February 2004 18:11, Leo Sutic wrote: > Now you turn around and say that I have to evolve the use case > into something industrial-strength and include it in the proposal > before you'll consider MutableConfiguration.
Without the "industrial-strength" there is no reason to make it into an interface as it will always be known to your classes what is going on. > Niclas, you're seriously changing the equation for me. I had > always thought that it was easier to get things into framework > than to fork framework. What you add today, I and others have to support tomorrow. > Your insistence on my expanding the proposal > beyond any reasonable scope has made the proposal route take about > one and a half weeks and counting, while a fork would take > about 1.5 minutes, and the results would be equivalent. I take it you believe I am the "bad guy" resisting change and the rest of the community is in favour of this proposal. Not true. I could vote -1, and then shut up, but I try to turn your proposal into something positive, yet getting harassed for it. > A fork would also completely halt any chance of any of my work > becoming open source. What is this? You are shedding OSS because I am not entirely in favour of the implementation details of a very funky idea (I do like the idea of Configurators)... Are you for real? Have you ever considered of throwing in a half-baked experiment in the sandbox for others to fool around with and perhaps do "beyond any reasonable scope"? Case closed for me. I have a feeling that this is getting personal and don't want to fan the flame anymore. Cheers Niclas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
