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
--
Simon C Nash IBM Distinguished Engineer
Hursley Park, Winchester, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999
Simon,
The point here is not how large someone's code is but whether they
are working with others in the community. As you point out, there has
been quite a bit of discussion over the last few days on how we
should move forward, discussion in which many people have engaged but
in which Sebastien has remained silent. Rather than work with others
to improve the model we already have, he chose to start over on his
own with a completely new architecture titled "m2-design." This isn't
asking for constructive discussion, it's throwing gasoline on the fire.
In terms of open-mindedness, Jim and I have already engaged on the
technical issues Sebastien brought up in his mail, just like we and
other community members did on the scenario thread. As these things
usually go, on some issues there's agreement, on some there are
differences of opinion, and others need more clarification. I look
forward to others joining this kind of constructive discussion so
that we can come to consensus. However, all the technical issues he
raised can be addressed by the incremental improvement approach and
none seem to warrant starting over; using something like using a List
vs. Map to justify a re-write is simply hyperbole.
Far from being negative, I am glad that we finally have these social
issues out of smoke-filled rooms and onto the table. This kind of
thing is never a pleasant discussion but is one that must be had if
we are to function as a community.
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
