Looks like there was a lot going on while I was away, and I'm just getting caught up. Sorry for adding my 2 cents late, but thought it might be worthwhile for confirmation.
I also agree that using a "micro-kernel" approach for Keel server is very important. I also support the separation of services from the server, however we need to ensure stability during this transition since we don't want everything to break while making such changes. Regarding module packaging, I concur with minimum, standard, and all. Doug -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sasvata (Shash) Chatterjee Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 1:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Keelgroup] Breaking remaining services up Mike & Derek, Thanks for the feedback. I'll get this done over the weekend. You are both right, it's hard to explain "it's all broken up, except for blah, blah and blah". Shash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Michael Nash JGlobal.com wrote: > >> +1 on this here. I think leaving some services in keel-server makes >> it confusing, not clearer, just as Pete has experienced. Right now we >> have to say "services are in modules *except* for ...." rather than >> just having one clean rule. > > > +1. I completely agree with Mike. We're promoting an architecture > here so having some things in one place and some in another is > confusing at best and difficult to justify as an architecture at > worst. > > Good call Shash. Thanks for taking this one on. > >> As far as multiple modules, let's have a "minimal" and "standard" >> module that gives you the absolute bare minimum module bundle, just >> like "all" does for all modules? > > > +1 http://keelframework.org/documentation Keelgroup mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.keelframework.com/listinfo.cgi/keelgroup-keelframework.com http://keelframework.org/documentation Keelgroup mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.keelframework.com/listinfo.cgi/keelgroup-keelframework.com
