On Tuesday 04 May 2004 04:00 pm, Ernst Bunders wrote: > 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 Having 4 implementations of the security classe in 1 core isn't nice either my proposal for this is to have the interfaces (email/security/logging/bridge) separated form the implementations Some of the util classes are actualy usefull without mmbase (logging) Some people might want to plug a different image converter Some modules (like email or jai ) require jars that are not open-source or reditribuable One must be "free to use and choose". (like not having scan or communityrpc or editwizards installed) Maybe it's because I'm using maven but i believe its better to have 4 modules then 1 module producing 4 artifacts with sucky ant code
