On Aug 31, 2006, at 1:31 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Ok ... take a deep breath.
This proposal was *not* just to work around windows. It was to
offer what I thought were constructive ideas and avoid exasperating
a known problem unnecessarily.
Yes, I understand.
I understand your hesitation to bundle the builders and deployers
together (which is why I had a note there). What do you think
about the rest of the proposal?
- Type based groupings in addition to functional groupings.
- One level deep. While I love hierarchy, I think it's overkill
here.
- Elimination of redundancy in names as much as possible. (BTW, I
know your post was a "crude stab" so I thought this was the type of
input you were requesting to refine it).
Yup, that is what we need to do... keep refining until its not
crude... then make a plan for how to do it.
I got side tracked by the evil windows sub-context :-P
- "server" in place of "system"
- "features" in place of "plugins"
- Consistent naming of artifacts when the type is included in the
name (such as with builder and deployer).
Fine with me.
--jason
