Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Jan 16, 2008 9:10 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
Mine was a really concrete, alternative, proposal: merge the 2 modules
if you spelled it out like that before, then my apologies (i must have
missed it)
Well, the subject of the thread and the first lines of my message:
"can you explain why you decided for an ad-hoc function module for [2
classes part of basic-user-function] instead of using the
avalon-user-function for them, too?"
I thought it was clear that the problem was the 2 modules (subject) and
that the alternative was to have a single module (the end of the question).
I started asking why you did it, because I think I have to understand
why you made a given choice before proposing something alternative.
BTW I will try to be more concrete in future criticism.
combining the basic and avalon means that the only user implementation
components available would have a hard dependency on avalon even
though there are user implementations which do not rely on avalon.
this is incorrect from a dependency management perspective.
there are other ways to approach this problem. if if is simply the
number of modules that concerns you then one approach would be to
divide the backend code into modules based on their dependencies.
I think it is not important what concern me as long as it does not
concern other developers of this community. I feel fine with any number
of modules as long as I see the benefits in term of new features and
increased community.
It was clear to me that modularizing the functions was much more easy
and that's why I tried to work on that as soon as you proposed the
modularization (this should prove I'm not against modularization
itself). I had it clear since your first proposal that modularization of
the core module would have been much more difficult and I don't have a
magic recipe for this.
I don't have enough english property to express my design/architectural
concerns, so I just tried to limit the discussion to the
avalon-user-function vs basic-user-function because I fear that
following the same pattern for the whole core will led us to create 100
modules and 100 modules, for JAMES Server, are too much. There are for
sure products where 100 modules are appropriate, but IMHO this is not
the case for JAMES Server and the current code complexity.
I just think I should be entitled to tell anytime I like what are my
preference and what is wrong IN MY OPINION. Once I do this others can
take the time to agree or disagree with me, and we can understand what
the community thinks about a given argument.
i would find it easier to understand your arguments if they were
phrased as concepts rather than opinions. if you put forward clearly
your alternative ideas for JAMES then people could argue about these
ideas and some of them may well be adopted.
I don't have a plan or alternative ideas on how to modularize the core
library. Does this mean I'm not entitled to express my concern on what
happens on the repository or to check whether the community share my
concern or not? I hope not.
I wrote multiple times, (too much times?), that you can go on with your
plan, that I'm fine now that I expressed my concern and I know the
community do not share my concern. I keep replying only because I feel
you don't understand that I really accept community decisions and I'm
not angry, stressed, or anything else WRT to trunk or the JAMES community.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
