On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Jon Stevens wrote:
> on 1/14/01 5:20 PM, "Jason van Zyl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm sure others have thought about this but I just
> > wanted to get the ball rolling.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > jvz.
>
> +1. Stefano has been pushing me for a long time now to get Avalon integrated
> into Turbine in one way or another. I haven't had the time or energy to do
> so.
>
> My only complaint is that this will undoubtedly cause yet more code that
> depends on Turbine to be broken. Therefore, whatever can be done to minimize
> any code breakage is highly recommended. At some point, I want to make a
> release of Turbine and if we go an re-do the whole Services framework
> (again), we are going to really piss a lot of people off.
Yes, it will probably cause some disturbance. But I think it's better
to do it before an official release. And I think we could ask and
collect a list of projects that are dependent on what we currently
have and work with them to make the transition easier. I think in
the long run this will be far more beneficial.
What is the best way to procede? I think a very simple thing
would be to move all belonging to a service within the service
and try to remove as much in the o.a.t.util packages as possible.
There are definitely some hairier services like the db and security
services, but there are services which could easily be bundled
together under one tree right now.
What is the best way to precede? Time to make another branch so
that we don't break a lot of code while the transition is
happening. And we should collect any ideas before anything
actually begins. I volunteer to coordinate the branch and/or
testing required to ensure that app dependent on classes in
the various *.util packages don't get messed up too badly.
jvz.
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
