On Tuesday 04 May 2004 03:23 pm, Boerland Bert wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michiel Meeuwissen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > So I think we can actually distinguish three kind of utils: > > > > 1. Utils that are used by mmbase-core classes [..] > > 2. Utils that use mmbase-core, but core does not depend on it. > > 3. Utils that don't use mmbase-core, and are not directly > > related to mmbase. > > Forgive my ignorance, I am relative new to mmbase but do have some experiences with > other "CMS-es". IMHO this 3-tier model creates extra overhead and uncertainty ("what > goes where? why?) from a user perspective. > > Why just not focus on making a very slim core and just optional modules around it? > (two tier) > > It is clear from the perspective of a maintainer of a module, makes legacy > dependencies less hard (up to the module to follow and migrate or not) and will be > generally regarded as a SmartMove TM. > > In case a module becomes popular or many other modules start getting dependent on > it, it could move to the core. But the baseline should be that there should be less > code in the core with every release up to the point of nihilism :-) >
Hi I don't understand what you mean what 2 or three tiers are you talking about?
