Le Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:30:05 +0200 Stéphane Urbanovski <[email protected]> a écrit:
>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. > We have begin to write plugin_fusioninventory (it's core) and to write plugin_fusinvsnmp, plugin_fusinvinventory and plugin_fusinvdeploy and to write new module of agent is very easy now with a core. For end user, it's separate like agent. So we have create modularity on agent and server glpi. We will have many more contribuation in newt month ;) David ++ _______________________________________________ Fusioninventory-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fusioninventory-devel
