Response below.

-----Original Message-----
From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Redesign issues

Keiron Liddle wrote:
> These are the issues that you have mentioned before.
> It is still essentially only attacking two methods (and supporting
> classes).
Unfortunately, these are the core methods, essential for understanding
the whole approach.


> If you have a better design, then do it.
I put a detailed critique and some proposals for alternatives
forward. It would be nice to hear your comments about how essential
the current approach (for the iterators) is for you and Karens
plans for further development, and/or how the alternatives would
interfere with it.

I agree, and this is one of the reasons I thought a comprehensive development plan, 
not just a simple todo list, is essential.  More than just one or two of us are 
waiting to see the solidification of a plan before we can see where we fit.  
Personally, I see a lot of things I'd like to do with the layout system, but I have a 
strong concern that they may not be fully congruent with the overall path of FOP as it 
is seen by the most prolific committers (like Keiron).  My work would thus be a waste 
of time for both me and FOP.

Let's get it together on this so we can all work towards a solution.  I really don't 
see why there's such a "love it or leave it" attitude with respect to the LMs as they 
are now.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to