On (02/08/02 16:38), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > So when I speak > about design, it is not about code in any way, but for example a statement > that threading model xyz should be used.
i've always found that this is better determined by getting in there and just trying stuff. > We cannot just say that data > access should be serializable because that is not detailed enough. So if > you want to influence rfcs and design, you would have to take part in the > discussions. Or there will be a spec where the implementation is not > given but a lot of constraints. i dont want a given implementation. i want a feature spec. the implemntation will be fairly easily derived from the requested features. you cant design the office space until you know the shape of the building. > The code itself > is certainly something that needs a lot of time, energy and motivation. > But the real problems are solved before that. actually, you cant know the really tricky problems until you're coding. ideal design often breaks down in the course of the reality of coding. > What I would like to know however is if you really would volunteer to just > produce code. Only some people like that and I dont know wether you do > (i'd guess you dont, but you seemed to say that .. ). dont worry about what i like. i volunteered didnt i? i'm more interested in the year or more of conversation finaly resulting in code. i have no stock or personal/work drama wrapped up in the object layer. it just sounds like an interesting problem to hack on. in lieu of consensus, i'm probably just going to play with some stuff on my own. you guys will probably hate it but oh well :) m.
