J�rgen Thomsen wrote:
Dear Aarno Syv�nen and Stipe Tolj.
Thank you, I appreciate your comments. They are fully validating my observations.
You are busy preserving the 'pure' design instead of thinking forward. In that way Kannel will die.
You may distingush between 'lowest common denominator' and 'abstraction', but, please,
explain why the two concepts are equal in Kannel ?
Frequently the efforts seen here are not to abstract, but to turn down suggestions, because they are not present in all protocols. That is not abstraction. That is backward thinking. Kannel would benefit from some real abstraction efforts with a forward view of supporting all protocols to each their fullest extent.
now, first of all. This "policy", if I'm free to proclaim it in that way, is not invented by people maintaining Kannel. It's "invented" by various other open source projects where not only software engeneering aspects come in play, but also politics, in some sence and manner. (I have a lot of real-life examples for those politics paths and mature practices while actively in the Apache group and developing process). So I obviously know from which perspective I'm talking.
I don't see any equation of 'lowest common denominator' and 'abstraction'. We never put this equation to a rule here in the group. There is only a generic policy which implies to the fraze "don't make it the messy way". Make a productive suggestion in a way that we can "see" how *you* tend to get the involved issues to be incorporated to Kannel, and let's discuss about them. I don't see why we should waste too much effort in politics here again. It's like in real-time politics, you have an opinion, we/I have an opionion. By stating how "dare narrow-minded" we are, you won't gain anything. Not to mention that this is basic rule of diplomacy. By applying for- and backward-talking of certain issues, you will get to the aim, and we too. So the basic essence of this is. Show us *why* the things you say (concerning factual issues, hence coding implementations) is more "worth", then not to add it. If you convince us by factual issues, we're always willing to "change" our position (like it tends to happen in real-time politics).
Ok, I agree in some limited sence to your last paragraph. But I refraze, it's up to *you* to draw the benefits of your opinion, in such a way that you generically convince by practical issues, not by generical politics frazes.
Stipe
mailto:stolj_{at}_wapme.de ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wapme Systems AG
Vogelsanger Weg 80 40470 D�sseldorf, NRW, Germany
phone: +49.211.74845.0 fax: +49.211.74845.299
mailto:info_{at}_wapme-systems.de http://www.wapme-systems.de/ -------------------------------------------------------------------
