> -----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 :-)
--
groets,
bert boerland
--- pinkroccade infrastructure services ---
Unless your universe is very different from mine,
you can't save time.
voice://020-5704939/ http://www.pinkroccade.nl/
