Sorry, my email client made a mess. Resending my text only
On 24/10/16 13:48, "Michael Marth" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Tommaso, > >I agree with your assessment that this discussion is actually about the >delivery granularity and user’s consumption of Oak. Taking the freedom to >re-phrase what you said above: > > * either a complete library that is consumed as a whole (and where the > various internal modules are implementation details) > * Or a set of modules where users are expected and allowed to access the > modules directly and deploy arbitrary subsets of modules > >At least so far, in my view we saw Oak as one library. If we were to change >that then we would need to be much more careful about the interactions between >the various (internal) modules. So far, these are an implementation detail >which we can change at will if needed - which obviously allows for quite some >flexibility on internal changes. > >my2c >Michael
