On Jul 6, 2006, at 2:17 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
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, I don't think that is fair and labeling it as offensive is
unnecessarily caustic. Perhaps Jeremy could have worded some of his
response better but I think *everyone* has been guilty of this over
the past several weeks so I'd prefer to make a general statement that
we all remain constructive since we are not doing a very good job of
community building.
My second point is that the desire for constructive discussion comes
from *all* of us, not just Sebastien. For example, Jeremy spent a
significant amount of time on the core2 architecture presentation a
month back, numerous posts to the list, proposals (e.g. constructor
injection), and scenarios, etc. - all of which were attempts to
constructively engage the community.
As I mentioned in a previous post, moving the community forward
starts with positive individual acts. Perhaps you could engage by
positing scenarios to the wiki you are interested in, or respond to
my response to Sebastien asking why any of the changes he mentioned
could not be incrementally accommodated by core2? This approach
sounds to me like a nice way to accommodate the interests of many and
move things forward.
Jim
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
