Neeme Praks wrote:
Berin Loritsch ::>>Development Plan 1: >> >>We continue to support our existing projects while we start fresh >>on a new effort. The new effort will be a scalable container that >>follows a "profile". Basically the container will only use the >>features that are part of that profile and ignore everything else. >> >>Development Plan 2: >> >>We adapt our current projects to the three/four tiered approach >>(Tutorial, Micro, Standard, Enterprise). This is probably an easier >>migration path, and it would leverage the existing code that we >>already have. > >Seems to me that you have missed the 3rd alternative: > >We continue to support our existing projects while we take the best >parts of the existing code into the new "tiered" model container. > >(and I do not believe that you were seriously proposing plan >2, as that >seems to imply NOT SUPPORTING EXISTING projects) Sorry to be confusing, but I thought that was implied for Dev plan 2. Which model do you prefer?
Ok, that's what I suspected ;-)
In that case, "3rd alternative" == "development plan 2"... :-)
And I would support exactly that: "refactor" (in the sense of "copy", not in the sense of "move" or "rename") the existing codebase(s) into a new "tiered" model.
+1
This seems to me to be consitent with plan 1 - but whatever - yes - it needs to happen.
Cheers, Steve.
Rgds,
Neeme
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- Stephen J. McConnell OSM SARL digital products for a global economy mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
