On Jan 22, 2008 7:18 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 considered several reasonable possibilities before choosing the 2-module solution i'm happy with the way the protocol modularlisation (SMTP and so on) worked. i'm less happy with torque and the user stuff. another alternative would be to adopt different strategies for protocols and backends. perhaps it would be better to group all implementations using a technology together. for example, avalon-backend and (say) jcr-backend. > I started asking why you did it, because I think I have to understand > why you made a given choice before proposing something alternative. it would have easier for me to understand and reply well if you'd counterposed an alternative example > BTW I will try to be more concrete in future criticism. IMHO concrete positive suggestions are not criticisms :-) <snip> > >> 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. of course not but it would just be more effective if you used alternative ideas as examples (even if they are just strawmen) > 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. i keep replying because i think i might learn something :-) - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
