As a consideration, I believe that neither Neil nor myself have commit access to the commons sandbox. That isn't a show stopper for me because I haven't contributed all that much, but maybe Neil feels otherwise?
+0 michael On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > We've had all positives so far. I'm going to take this as agreed and move > the code to a new sandbox project. I reckon [observable] is probably the > best name, although I'm open to offers. The move will probably happen late > this week/weekend unless someone objects. > > Stephen > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Neil O'Toole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I'm +1 on it moving out. Who is the community as far as that piece of > > > code > > > is concerned? Is it just a Stephen Colebourne work, ie) moving to > > > joda > > > makes good sense, or something by more people? > > > > Stephen, Michael Hauer, and myself are the three people who have had > > most involvement in this area. Stephen wrote the observable > > implementation. I'd developed another full implementation called > > notifyingcollections with a different slant. I don't have strong > > feelings on having separate source trees / projects (+0?) but the > > observable stuff should certainly have its own distributable. There are > > many equally valid ways of doing notification (in particular callback > > vs. event-based, and light event vs. heavy event), and novel features > > that can be added (such as the "ReplayableEvent" mechanism in > > notifyingcollections that allows an event to be undone/replayed in an > > arbitrary manner thus enable the easy recording of the entire state > > history of a collection). In short, lots of code. > > > > I really think it does deserve its own distributable, and the more I > > think about it, probably it's own subproject. I believe one of the > > points that Steven was making is that this work is holding up the > > release of the core [collections] stuff. And since there's so much that > > can be done in [observable], I feel it would be fairer to decouple the > > pair. > > > > >neil > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
