On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> >> On 8/7/08, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >>>> >>>> most people know that a long standing goal of mine has been to create >>>> independent lightweight protocol components (eg no avalon) that are >>>> used by JAMES but can also be used by other application. i think >>>> separate independent protocol components will have the following >>>> benefits: >>>> [...] >>>> opinions? >>> >>> +1 for making protocols avalon-free (or better cornerstone and excalibur >>> free.. I don't care if you free it from avalon-framework or not). >>> >>> -0 for moving them out of trunk now. I would prefer if you start this >>> work inside trunk extracting the code to modules first and once we have >>> modules that satisfy us and are self contained we can start single votes >>> to extract them to separate products. >> >> The easiest way to work on the simple protocols (not IMAP) would be to >> define a new peer module type 'protocols'. We could then start to >> enforce decoupling using the compiler. > > Works for me (I didn't analyze this issue in depth yet).
unless anyone objects, i'll kick this off by adding a protocols modules build in the functional layer. > If working in trunk make it harder then we can move out. But I'll prefer to > stay in trunk as long as it is possible. > > e.g: AFAIK refactoring between separated projects take much more time than > refactoring on a single project within Eclipse, mainly because of svn > integration not being able to make "svn cp" to span projects ok - robert > > Stefano > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
