On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:36:45 +0200, Anders Olofsson <[email protected]> wrote:
Firstly, Licq 2.0:
I think we can all agree that Licq needs a make over on many levels and
a redesign is needed. However, with the current activity, it will take
ages before we have Licq 2 as a replacement for Licq 1.
So I think we should instead focus on Licq 1 and change it one bit at a
time. This way we can get a redesign done over time but still work with
a product that's usable and deliverable along the way. I know this will
require more work, take longer time and probably break the API between
every release we make, but I can see this happening whereas Licq 2 would
require more dedication, organization and planning than we currently
have.
Actually, I'm opposed to this approach.
Yes, we do have a user base in Licq 1. Yes, Licq 2 development would take quite
some time until it's publicly usable. But I think keeping tuning Licq 1 is a
dead-end road because steps that should be made to reach Licq 2 state would
take way(!) longer than writing from scratch and it would never get rid of the
Licq 1 inheritance. Moreover, we already have some code for Licq 2 by Erik. And
to my mind it would be better we put all the work there.
As for the protocol implementation, using external library is the way to go as
the general rule. Just remember the Unix philosophy. But it has to be
considered on the per protocol cases.
--
Eugene Paskevich | *==)----------- | Plug me into
[email protected] | -----------(==* | The Matrix
