Hey Daniel, I can't open your attachment. It is broken for me. Could you add a link to the image?
Thanks, Lucas On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 5:11 PM Daniel Takabayashi < daniel.takabaya...@gmail.com> wrote: > [image: marvin-architecture-views (5).png] > attached the arch draw.. > > Em qua, 24 de out de 2018 às 17:09, Daniel Takabayashi < > daniel.takabaya...@gmail.com> escreveu: > >> Hi all, >> >> To try to give a little more details about this "new concept" that we >> want to bring to the marvin toolbox, I did this simple architecture draw. >> >> >> The general idea here is try to transform the toolbox something >> disconnected with the "language", something more agnostic. Also in this new >> architecture we could use remote resource to process engines and make easy >> the support for new languages. >> >> This "new toolbox" will be the only thing that a Marvin user must to >> install and also we could start to support multiples O.S (once the REPL is >> a dummy application that only interprets and by pass commands). >> >> Regards, >> Taka >> >> Em qua, 24 de out de 2018 às 12:44, Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com> >> escreveu: >> >>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 5:56 PM Rafael Novello >>> <rafa.reis.nove...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Alan, >>> > >>> > To be honest, I don't know. The new toolbox concept help us with some >>> > problems >>> > but it create others. I believe we need to vote if the new concept >>> will be >>> > the future >>> > or not. Am I right? >>> > >>> >>> We usually only require a vote when there is no consensus on the >>> community. If the community agrees with the new direction, then there >>> isn't a need for a formal vote. In case there isn't agreement, a vote >>> can be a possibility to resolve the impasse. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Luciano Resende >>> http://twitter.com/lresende1975 >>> http://lresende.blogspot.com/ >>> >>
