Stefano Bagnara wrote: > Danny Angus wrote: > > On 1/17/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snipped/> > > PS: I don't understand why this thread seems a me against robert or > danny. I'm simply trying to understand robert ideas, and to ask him > explanations. I did this with Joachim when he provided the > current IMAP > code, and he didn't take my questions/critics as a personal > attack or as > "my rules" against him. Did I write something bad? If my message was > hard I ask sorry to anyone offended, but I'm simply trying to *get* > *more* from a new committer (Robert). > I have not big interests in this discussion. I replied > because I thought > Robert's ideas deserve an answer, but If anyone else from the > PMC will > take care to interact with Robert about his proposals I will > be happy to > shut up and simply oversight.
No, don't shut up! It's perfectly reasonable to seek a fuller understanding of a proposal. Perhaps its better that we seek this fuller understanding of Robert's proposal before comparing it with others. This way we don't accidentally find ourselves in the position of comparing it with others before each proposal is fully understood. Personally I'm very happy to evaluate a reasonably fleshed out UML design. I think Robert's "design-doodles" do need a little fleshing out, but it is a good approach. Equally, I can see that for those less used to this approach, it can be a barrier to understanding. This is why I suggested adding some skeletal javadoc style comments. These would describe the intent of the types and key methods. Methods descriptions should also include their parameters and return types. Given such an elucidated proposal, we can all ask concrete questions about concrete things. Cheers -- Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
