Heikki Toivonen wrote: > An example that is coded differently from the real Chandler seems less > valuable than an example that shows and explains how we really do things.
Actually, the conventional style is that "hello world" examples show off how little code it really takes to use the demonstrated system. If you can get it down to under 5 lines, you've shown how sexy your system is :) "Real Chandler" examples should be separate from "hello worlds". Full examples (like Java's example store) should be sparse, but show the full framework needed to hook into the various bits (such as stamping). I suppose I favor having both, with an emphasis today on the shortest example that can be made to do useful work. But I should be able to "graduate" to a fully-stamped (or whatever else ViewableKind doesn't give you) parcel via sample code tested and included in the 0.6 release. I would probably include ViewableKind in 0.6 if the full example is also done and the shorter example is the only thing that uses ViewableKind. Risk seems low in that case, even if ViewableKind has bugs. At least, I would start with the ViewableKind model if it were offered and required no patching. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
