On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: >> Have we reached a conclusion yet? I think other people are still chiming in >> with opinions. It seems that you merged more modules than what we discussed. >> > > I agree with Raymond and would really appreciate if we don't jump on > making changes before reaching consensus, particularly on areas where > there are some disagreements such as our scope of modularity. > > Ant, could you please revert/hold on these changes until we reach > consensus here. > >
Luciano, I think this is a misunderstanding - I have _not_ merged the modules that you questioned, i've left definitions-xml and policy-xml alone for now. I have merged assembly, definitions, and policy, I don't think any one objects to those, and that caused another circular dependency in the interface module so i merged that as well as it meets all the criteria that Raymond defined. However I don't want the interface module to disrupt getting agreement on merging the other xml modules so i'll go look at finding a different way around the interface circular dependency and separate that out again for now. While thats happening what about the xml modules, no one has replied to the comments I made - is there really any need to keep them separate when you can't run without them now and even if you could they only add a 40k overhead. ...ant
