On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 4/24/11 12:17 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: > >> </snip> >> >> At some point, for an extra effort (ie splitting this module in two with >> >>> explicit names) would probably help. >>> >> >> Yeah that would have been good but there's one extra little PITA problem >> here. By splitting it you're going to have to have 4 modules. Right now >> there are 2. One for the API holding the non-opaque control and extop >> interfaces with specific accessor/mutator pairs to their payloads and the >> actual codec extension (implementation) which does the work of >> [de]marshalling to and fro. >> >> If we break this up into a extras-controls and an extras-extended-ops >> we'll >> have created two more new modules not just one for a total of 4 modules to >> handle them. >> >> Something more to think about. >> > > I wasn't thinking about having 2 distinguished modules, but something like > extra-extensions could be better. I don't really know, except that > extra-codec does not fit. > > At least, I wanted to ope a discussion around this. I'm open to anything that brings more clarity. I agree that extras-codec is not very intuitive at describing what exactly is contained in the module. Regards, Alex
