Thanks Nico,
I agree with you that we need to define what we have build and to redefine what we don't like. I'm also not sure that we have to drop MMObjectNode and MMObjectBuilder, but I think that we should move it to another packace (what do they have to do with modules?), we should rename them (MMObjectNode and MMObjectBuilder are obviously the counterparts of Node and NodeManager, so the creators of the bridge at least agree with me here), we should remove a lot of cruft from it, and I also agree that - while VirtualNode and Node may have a common interface and/or ancestor - they sould not extend from each other, because they are different things (actually the bridge is looking like this already IIRC). This more or less boils down to 'we must drop them' :-) I suggested four 1.9 issues: 1. java 1.5 2. core? 3. framework/applications, plugins 4. testing I think point 2 to 4 must be covered by actual MMBase projects, and point 2 can also be restated as 'we must evaluate the design of the MMBase core', for which everything you said is very relevant, and welcome. Point 3 is sufficiently vague, I just wanted to give room to the karma/didactor developments and not leave them unmentioned. 1 is a small issue, I just wanted to discuss about dropping 1.4 support. 4 seems very important to me, but is not about actual design or features. Nico Klasens wrote: > 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. So, I was not under the impression that I stated many new features for 1.9. Only point 3 was probably about features (though very vague). greets, Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen mihxil' Peperbus 111 MediaPark H'sum [] () +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
