* Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-18 14:27]: > [ lots of basic stuff about virtual packages ] > For example, something like this could work: > > David determines exactly which features are needed from a > DBMS by his app, and specifies the interface that his app > will use to access them.
And that is the weak point of such an approach and also the reason I do not think it will usefully encourage attempts at such abstraction (as Daniel Staal suggested): it requires a formally specified interface definition at the very beginning. That isn't something that happens in the real world; application needs evolve as the application changes -- internal interfaces change all the time, and having to set them in stone would in fact be a real hindrance to development. (Chant the refactoring mantra here with me.) As a reference point, go take a look at the virtual packages in Debian. How many of them are virtual packages for equivalent libraries, as opposed to equivalent apps? I don't think there are any. Regards, -- Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
