Am Dienstag, den 15.01.2008, 19:41 +0100 schrieb Stefano Bagnara: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > > On Jan 15, 2008 1:51 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Btw If I am alone with this idea, then no problem. I just wanted to > >> share that IMHO this (that module with 2 classes) makes no sense. > > > > i'm not sure that the number of classes should be relevant: a better > > test is whether the module is a logical and cohesive unit. in this > > case, i agreed that it is debatable. but it's a code smell rather than > > an anti-pattern. i would like to indicate clearly that there's > > something not quite right about JAMES 3.0 rather than hiding it. > > I don't care if we want to call it anti-pattern, code smell or > differently. I don't like it and I think it is complicating things > instead of making it simpler (that was the original goal). > > But, again, if *I* am the only one with this vision then this > conversation does not worth our time anymore :-) > > We probably just have different styles: you are the more active at the > moment and no one else expressed his opinion. So your way is the right way. > > Stefano
Hi, its the time to step in now ( maybe a bit late at all... ) ;-) Sorry if im so late. I don't like ( maybe its just of my missing understanding of ant ) the module stuff to much. For me its really not easy to see sometimes which module contain which stuff etc. I think its cool to make it easy to develop and replace modules, so the idea is not bad ( well its maybe really good). I think its probally "my problem", its just hard to understand all this stuff after i was so inactiv and not was able to follow all the changes the last months :-/ Maybe there is a way to make it more "easy to use" ? Sorry for just step in now ..... bye Norman --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
