Personally, I don't like having multiple "versions" of the same module such
as xyz and xyz-2 in trunk.
I'm all for having better ways to do things and I also believe that showing
the code helps us understand the idea while the discussion is going on. Is
sandbox a better place? Once the consensus is reached, we can then add it to
trunk and remove the old one. We had a lot of pain in the 1.x code base that
modules were providing the same function using a different way which I found
inconsistent and very confusing.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 12:21 AM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Node usage of the workspace and implementation-node modules
Currently the node-impl module has dependencies on implementation-node
and the workspace modules, I think its worth exploring if thats
necessary. In r772526 i've created a new node-impl2 module thats a
copy of node-impl but with no dependencies on implementation-node or
the workspace modules. It does include 4 classes copied from
workspace-impl and they're still in the o.a.t.s.workspace package to
make that obvious. Comparing the two node-impl modules i think this
makes node-impl2 significantly cleaner and shows that having those
contribution classes in workspace-impl may not be the correct place
and they'd be better in one of the contribution* modules.
Any comments?
...ant
