Jeremy,
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
<cut/>
I just checked in sandbox/sebastien/m2-design/model.spi a set of new
interfaces. This is just an initial strawman to trigger a
constructive discussion and ideas on how to best represent the
recursive model. I also need help to define a scenario (not unit test
cases, but an end to end sample application) to help put the
recursive composition model in perspective and make sure we all
understand it the same way.
I am troubled that you have chosen to start on your own codebase at a
time when most of us have been trying to have constructive discussion
on this list. Based on the approach you proposed in your original email
I would have hoped that we could have started with your end- user
scenarios and had a chance to explore how they could be supported by
M1, the sandbox, or some other code before starting another codebase.
I'm disappointed that, having started this very thread nearly a week
ago with the premise of community, your first response on it was to
commit a large chunk of independent code rather than follow up with any
of the other people who have already contributed to the discussion.
I think discussion led to compromise and consensus on the scenario-
driven approach that you proposed. As shown above and in other recent
threads, there's plenty of room for improvements and/or new features in
our current code and a willingness to discuss them, albeit in terms of
technical merit rather than personal opinion. I hope you can find a way
to join in rather than forge your own path.
This can by no stretch of the imagination be described as a "large chunk
of independent code". It consists of around 20 interfaces with no
implementation. Quite a bit of the discussion on this topic over the
last few days has focused on what could be the advantages of starting
a new code stream rather than continuing with either M1 or core2. As
Sebastien said in his post, the purpose of this code (as well as other
suggestions he made in his latest post) is to trigger contructive
discussion on new ideas that are not incrementally derived from either
of the existing codebases. When presenting such ideas, it is often
helpful to see sample code rather that just a textual description.
I am very disppointed at your negative reaction to this, which is about
as far away as I can imagine from the constructive technical discussion
that Sebastien asked for. We will only reach the right conclusion on
this important debate if we all engage constructively at a technical
level and evaluate new contributions and ideas in an open-minded way.
Your apparent characterization of Sebastien's constructive engagement
in this discussion as an attempt to "forge his own path" is unfair and
offensive, and not at all how I interpret Sebastien's recent posts.
Simon
--
Simon C Nash IBM Distinguished Engineer
Hursley Park, Winchester, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
