|1) The DM was only useful during startup. Since this need was taken care
|of in a simpler way with the new conf scheme, why use it?
Ok yes for startup. Andy is talking about runtime ala "inprise" and we are
not there. When we do we need a DM back in. I agree with your stance on
"XP", let's do what we need *now*...but understand their point ;-)
|2) The main reason to have a DM at all, as opposed to just using the
|server conf. file order, was to allow runtime checking of dependencies.
correct
|> I think this was a quick and dirty solution instead of
|> a well designed one
|
|This was not a q&d solution, but the result of listening to all
(it was a qd) but an XP one... frankly the DM was a bit "overdesigned"...
Hey rickard even you fall prey to that these days... what is this
"XMLLoadable" thingy in the CI...
|That said, there are still things to be done, runtime dependencies being
|the main one. So, the dependency manager *functionality* will reappear
ok so we agree, case closed.
|I agree, I should have discussed it more. I did post info about it
|though, and no complaints were voiced, so I continued.
The properties was a catastrophy, the DM was just an annoyance. we will
deal with the situation as is... to go forward you need to leave some stuff
behind (dixit Steve Jobs)
marc
|
|regards,
| Rickard
|
|--
|Rickard �berg
|
|Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
|
