+1 I fully agree with Bernd ideas. Stefano
Bernd Fondermann ha scritto: > Sounds like a billiant idea. Will it work, though? > Won't this over time lead to a trunk swamped with half-baked years-old > experiments? > What if the experiment is to change how modules are working together? > (Current modules have very tight coupling.) This would have to be done > on a branch nevertheless, if we wouldn't want to break what's in > TRUNK. > > The motiviations for the proposal are very valid. We need a way to > "plug-in" (experimental) functionality (modules). > Today, we fork the whole James Server in branches/sandbox. This is > bad. We must have an architecture where we can (more) easily plug in > modules, whereever they come from (sandbox/third party). > > My approach would be to fix the server architecture (APIs, interfaces, > container) first, instead of moving experiments from sandbox to trunk. > > The module refactoring is an important first preparational step. But > at some point we have to fix our application, so it can support the > module concept properly. > > What I'd like to see is to move experiments to trunk as soon as they > become alpha-quality and could be deployed/released to our users. > > Bernd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
