On Mar 31, 12:26 pm, Saikat Chakrabarti <[email protected]> wrote: > I realize it wouldn't be the most backward > compatible thing, and so maybe this is not > what we should do, but I think it might still > be useful to agree on an ideal architecture we > want to work towards.
No, let's not have our progress limited by backwards compatibility. Good design and implementation must come first; after that we can provide a (partial) compatibility layer or a document to ease migration. > Any thoughts? I think you're definitely on the right track here, and I'm looking forward to the implementation. Overhauling the view system is a major milestone on the way to 1.0. > Also this doesn't necessarily reflect what I > want to do in the short term to remove the presentation > singleton limitation, though if it seems easy enough > (I'm not the best judge of this), I might try to do it. Well, it depends on your time and motivation. If you're sure to have enough of both then go ahead with the larger plan right away. If not then we're better off with an incremental plan, i.e. singleton fix first, larger plan later. Leslie --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
