On 8 November 2012 13:12, Simon IJskes - QCG <si...@qcg.nl> wrote: > On 08-11-12 13:40, Peter Firmstone wrote: > > Yes, but lets play around with it in skunk. Dan's made some valid >> > > Indeed Dan has made valid remarks, but i really dont like skunk. Tom > suggested sub projects once. I did not see any benefits at that time. But i > think it might be helpful right now. > > We could use the subprojects as 'clients' to the core, and allow > requirements of these subprojects drive the modifications of the core. > > We can decide whatever status a subproject will have, and we do not make > them heavyweight. Just an extra jar, an extra libs and an extra src in a > directory together. > > I'm thinking about osgi, wan, internet, jmx transports etc. We treat the > sub projects as first class citizens, and do proper release management on > them. Just not that often. > > Am i still thinking too grandiose Dan? > > Nope, I think that's one way to handle things. It's reminiscent of Linux kernel development style amongst others.
> Gr. Simon > > > > > >
