On 10/30/2012 10:41 AM, Petr Vobornik wrote:
I would rather pack it with FreeIPA. I would bundle the Dojo builder
either way because is not part of the Fedora package. Other thing is
that the build in the fedora package won't be probably suited for
FreeIPA - it's not build into single file.


Ugh. Do we really want to be in the business of packaging and supporting a complex framework exclusively for IPA?

I know there has been a move afoot for "software collections" where packages install with their own private copy of some other package because they can then control the dependency. But that opens up a whole raft of problems (security patches to name just one) that I think we would be better off avoiding. IMHO system supplied packages are a clear winner over private copies of packages but I recognize not everyone agrees with this.


What is the chance other projects in the distros we work with make the
decision to use Dojo? Do any of them already do? What is the experience?

I don't know about any. IMHO we can only guess. There are big
differences in developers preferences. Some rather use more server
technology like some jboss-based-framework or django, some a single page
application (our web UI).

Just as an aside. I'm not a web developer but from standing on the sidelines it seems to me every 6 months there is a new web framework djour. It makes my head spin, this is the most volatile area of software I've ever seen. It seems like as soon as you've hitched your horse to one you're behind the curve because of the next best thing. I wonder why this software domain can't settle on one or two basic technologies instead of the constant churn and disruption. Wouldn't that benefit everyone?


--
John Dennis <jden...@redhat.com>

Looking to carve out IT costs?
www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/

_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel

Reply via email to