>> patch ie. should Kannel be a 'lowest common denominator' software or should >> it be a >> framework to handle several protocols as 'abstracted' as possible but with >> provisions >> for handling all aspects of a specific protocol. >> >> In my view the latter is a much more useful and challenging point of view. > >great. At last we agree. Same for me.
Good. > >The "problem" is on how to achieve this idialistic thing. > Exactly. One place to start could be better documentation of the program. It appears to me, that documentation of the code mainly exists in the minds of the core developers (a very dangerous place to store documentation), and in the C source. This makes it difficult for others to contribute to the architecture of the project. If more documentation was made, especially on the parts involved in achieving the ultimate goal, then a broader discussion could be had than just between a few people. This would both spur new ideas and more people to implement the ideas. - J�rgen Thomsen
