it seems to me that utility classes that do not very distinctly belong to one of the separated applications (and that application alone) should be left in the core. Without the core these utilities have no meaning so they are part of the core. Maybe this is allso a discussion about what the core should be. I think it should be the minimal code required for a fully functioning mmbase. And fully functionally could very well mean fully extendable as well. So if some utilities are not used by any functions in the core but still provide a logical and powerfull way to interact with it, i think it belongs to the core. We must guard against creating 261 or so installable modules that together will form mmbase. One of the issues that should concern us is that mmbase is not a very clear product. three types of utility classes is not going to make us score points in this direction ernst
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Michiel Meeuwissen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Verzonden: dinsdag 4 mei 2004 15:10 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Re: MMBase 1.8.0 - Release Plan (proposal) > > > Pierre van Rooden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Michiel Meeuwissen wrote: > > >>- Tools: move utility classes, modules, and builders that > are still > > >>useful to a tools application > > > > > >I think that will problably mean that mmbase-core is > dependent on the tools > > >application, and also vica versa. > > > > If core is dependent on a util or builder, than that is a > core util or > > builder. > > Tools are builders/utils that are nice, and for which we > want to keep > > the code, but which are not used by Core > > So I think we can actually distinguish three kind of utils: > > 1. Utils that are used by mmbase-core classes, and use > mmbase-core objects > themselves. These simply should remain part of mmbase.jar. E.g. the > XML-parsing stuff for builders and modules. > > 2. Utils that use mmbase-core, but core does not depend on it. E.g. > interesting, but non-system, builders and modules, like the > Images/Attachments-framework. > > 3. Utils that don't use mmbase-core, and are not directly > related to mmbase. > But mmbase-core (or mmbase applications?) uses those utils. E.g. > 'magic', 'externalprocess' or 'transformers'. These could > be bundled > together in a tools package on which mmbase-core depends, > but which could > find more general application, also outside the scope of mmbase. > > right? It perhaps becomes a bit tricky to get the > dependencies and build-process > feasible. > > > Michiel > > > -- > Michiel Meeuwissen > Mediacentrum 140 H'sum > +31 (0)35 6772979 > nl_NL eo_XX en_US > mihxil' > [] () >
