Hi, On 6/13/07, Chris Mattmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure I follow you here Jukka. I wasn't saying that we shouldn't have code in SVN, simply, that we should properly design the way that the system is going to work before we start moving code, "just to have code" within SVN.
See my other message on this. I'm a bit concerned about our ability to have a productive "pure" design discussion without at least some code to base it on. We've already had a few design threads, but each seems to have died with no real conclusions. I believe that having some concrete code that people can play with will have a positive impact also on higher level discussions.
I'm fine with having code for Tika, however, we at least need to have: 1. use cases for Tika (how does a user interact with it?) 2. generic interfaces and extension points that will support these use cases 3. implementations of those interfaces and concrete classes We have a few cases for item #1, however, there are no specs for #2 and #3, which must come at least during this time when new code is getting attached, no?
No. :-) Having a shared area where we can prototype and discuss alternatives (I regard code as another means of communication) is quite valuable when coming up with answers to the open design issues. We can also always refactor, rewrite, or simply dump existing code if and when needed since we aren't yet making any backwards compatibility promises.
From the Tika proposal: "No existing codebase is selected as "the" starting point of Tika to avoid inheriting the world view and design limitations of any single project. " Am I off base here?
I very much agree with that statement, and I don't think we are breaking it here. I think it's quite clear to everyone that the code we have now (and will have for the months to come) is an early draft that can and will be dropped if needed. I also quite like the way Rida has started merging code from both Lius and Nutch. BR, Jukka Zitting
