Op 11-mei-2006, om 23:19 heeft Nico Klasens het volgende geschreven:
IOW, I am not going to work on something which is anticipating what
we need in a good architecture. I would love to work on something
which promises me a good architecture. When you know what you are
going to build then it is easier to refactor in steps.
I also doubt that our end-users (the application developers) would
wait for all the features you mention for 1.9. I think they rather
like to see a less confusing architecture.
I can agree with both. Nico and others, how would you like to refrase
the 1.9 'release plan'? What are the most important points that need
to be tackled?
Maybe when we refrase them like in 1.8.x i would like to see ... and
in 1.9 i would want ... that would clarify the discussion.
---André
Regards,
Nico
Michiel Meeuwissen wrote:
Since 1.8.0 is out, we can now think about what we can do for
upcoming
releases.
If I may start making suggestions:
1.8.x:
- bugfixes (also when related to performance only)
- loose ends on datatypes (XML presentation and javascript,
commons-validator wrapper, LIST db type?)
- loose ends on applications and contributions.
1.9.0
- dropping support for java 1.4, dropping backport-concurrent,
using other java 1.5 features in the code. Evaluate what we
must do
with things like 'NodeList' (should it not become List<Node>?)
- 1.8 has made a start with a new org.mmbase.core package
We must discuss how we progress with this. CoreField suggest that
also CoreNode, CoreNodeManager may follow. We may introduce these
in 1.9 already.
- Changes necessary for the upcoming application/portlet
framework. E.g. to accomodate versioning, workflow and
application-packaging features more easily.
- 1.8.0 is shipped with succeeding junit test-cases.
1.9 must be shipped with standardized bench-marks for
performance of
core, bridge, taglib etc. I feel it is a problem that must be
addressed that we don't well perceive performance regressions
or improvements.
Something like that seems to be enough for a new major release. It
should not take over 2 years again. I'd say we must strive to a
release
of 1.9 in 2006.
And after that:
2.0 (yeah! core2, finally!, after so many years ...)
- Completing of the 'code clean up' (optimization project)
- Dropping MMObjectBuilder MMObjectNode, in favour of more bridge
like interfaces all around (as we may have anticipated in 1.9 by
filling org.mmbase.core..).
- ....
- ...
Please, comment and contribute.
Greetings,
Michiel
_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
--
André van Toly
web http://www.toly.nl mobile +31(0)627233562
------------------------------------------------------------------>><<--
_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
