On 9/11/06, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dave Johnson wrote: > Thanks for the detailed answer. Comments below...
. . .
> On 9/8/06, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> At a slightly lower level I think that means that each component should >> only have code/configs that know how to run itself. Meaning that they >> can't share any db tables, they can't share any config files, and they >> can't share any code (aside from explicit utils/interfaces which are >> meant to be shared). > > No, that's wrong. The Modular Roller proposal is to have a shared > core that includes user management and configuration. > > I think what you have in mind is better characterized by the words > "Modular Planet" which is not a bad idea -- it's just different from the > Modular Roller concept I have in mind. I'll describe what I mean by > Modular Planet below. I see what you mean now when you say 'Modular Roller' but that wasn't really clear to me based on the proposal. My idea of what you were trying to do was much different.
. . .
After reading this email it's clear that your plans were much more complicated than what I was thinking about, so we were talking apples and oranges. Now that I understand what you want to do it makes sense and I think it's a very cool idea, but it will take a lot of work and careful planning to do this.
OK. Full-on Modular Roller is too much for 3.1. Instead, I've written up a new proposal called Modular Planet to enable us to get a Planet webapp up and running quickly and work towards modularity but not in a destabilizing way. http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_Modular_Planet - Dave
