>Peter, if I understand you correctly, you are using your 1-PFD for a
>corporate framework, and you are using your 1-PFE for PFC bug fixes.
>And then when a new version of PFC comes along, you simply replace
>your PFC and PFE layers with the new PBLs from Sybase. And all of
>your application-level-specific logic lies beneath the PFE cutoff (and
>you never dip below the PFE level in your PFC/PFD so that direct
>PBL/PBD sharing is cool). Correct?
That�s correct �cept ...
(1) you could knock off the word "corporate" -- our intention is that the framework
can be popped in under pfe if app designers want it there, and when it is there,
developers are free to step round it by designing some modules without it if the
designers permit that -- the aim being empowerment & flexibility, not standards
enforcement (which we leave to the bureaucrats and other control freaks);
(2) we save off the old pfe, so if testing reveals that a bug for which we have a pfe
fix has survived into the new version, we plunk the old fix into the new pfe, debug
that and so on till everything works.
Since we�ve restricted ourselves to using pfe for bug fixes there�s no advantage for
us in adding an extra bug fix layer below pfe. As you say, "for
[1-PFC/1-PFE(Corp)/App1,App2,etc], you only need to worry about not �dipping below
the PFE-level�..."; you get maximum flexibility & generality and in our design
testing & use of a framework built on this architecture, pbl/pbd sharing hasn�t been
a problem.
Peter
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOSTED BY IIGG, INC. FOR HELP WITH LIST SERVE COMMANDS, ADDRESS
> A MESSAGE TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] WITH THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE: help pfcsig
> SEND ALL OTHER INQUIRES TO [EMAIL PROTECTED]
