On Thursday 22 January 2009 12:16, Florent Daigniere wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On Thursday 22 January 2009 10:43, Florent Daigniere wrote: > >>>>> FMS is not non-fixable. You just don't care about it. > >>>> We don't bundle jSite, Thaw or Thingamablog either, even though they are > >>>> written in Java. Because they are separate, non-integrated, standalone > >>>> applications that we don't have control over and don't have the resources > > to > >>>> review. FMS could conceivably be somewhat less separate in that FMS could > >>>> link to the freenet web interface and vice versa, but given that we have > >>>> Freetalk, which is integrated properly and has a better architecture, why > >>>> bother? > >>> Depends on what "architecture" means. > >>> If you means the message format -- maybe. > >>> If you means the class structure, program flow, etc -- it's not. > >>> > >>> This can be very subjective -- you may ask nextgen to see if he agree. > >>> > >>> The code problems I known in FMS is local -- just change one or two > >>> line in a function. > >>> The code problems I known in FreeTalk/WoT involve refactoring. > >>> In this sense, I consider FMS more maintainable. > >> My guess is that by architecture toad means "separation in between WoT > >> and Freetalk". I do agree with him that fms's approach (one WoT > >> per-application) is not the way to go. > >> > >> Regarding Somedude's reactivity/responsivity, I do have a different > >> experience: I sent two patches to him through the FMS board, none of > >> them got applied... And at least one of them (a trivial patch fixing the > >> build process on macos) should have been without any further discussion. > >> > >> Regarding Freetalk itself, well I haven't reviewed the code yet so I > >> won't comment. From what I have seen (some shared classes ended in the > >> node's package!) it's a mess. > > > > What's wrong with putting shared classes in the node? It seems the most > > practical solution right now? > > > > It's ugly design-wise, it's silly to keep (apparently) unused classes > around, ... > > Long term solution is plugin-dependencies... But I have already made a > case for them iirc.
And I will try to get plugin dependancies and plugin updating in before 0.8, but it seems very doubtful at this point. However, I don't see Freetalk/WoT being useful and maintainable without it... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 827 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20090122/44a45702/attachment.pgp>
