Fabrice Flore-Thébault a écrit :
On 15-juin-10, at 10:16, Gonéri Le Bouder wrote:
2010/6/15 David DURIEUX <[email protected]>:
Le Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:08:24 +0200
Gonéri Le Bouder <[email protected]> a écrit:
Have all modules begin to be difficult because there is lots of code
for each module (and future modules), so if we split, it more easy to
maintain and have good code.
On the other side, it will be more hard to maintain shared code between
the sub-plugins, you'll have to keep compatibility with different
revision
of the modules (API and DB schema).
My point of view, as a user and a non-developer, is following (and
engage only myself) :
I prefer to have only one plugin, as it is more clear to manage and
maintain as a software on a production environment. You will loose the
"visual" unity of the product, i am not sure it's a good idea.
You will have to describe and document the collection of plugins that
can be used, and that's more than just activating (or not) a feature in
a product.
Hi
This is more a packaging issue.
If the the code is "splitable", you can make a package that include all the
pluging (and dependencies !) YOU need.
On Linux distribution you can even use meta-package to achieve this.
--
Stéphane Urbanovski
_______________________________________________
Fusioninventory-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fusioninventory-devel
