Simon IJskes - QCG wrote:
On 09-11-12 13:48, Peter Firmstone wrote:
Simon IJskes - QCG wrote:
On 09-11-12 00:31, Peter Firmstone wrote:
Ok, because it's small I think we can consider it, can you provide the
hooks to load different providers? The non default providers
themselves
can be a subproject. We need to carefully consider security since
we're
making it possible for downloaded code to resolve classes.
And this one? Do you want me to code hooks (spi?) in river-core so
that subprojects can attach?
I can submit some code we can play with, that'll clear up any confusion.
I was basically saying in a very roundabout way that skunk has its
place, for more complex changes.
Or develop without intermediate commit, or run synced clone, or work
with own codebase, and reintegrate after proven use. Everything is
possible.
Review before release is preferred, however we decide to make that
happen. It's no longer clear how this process should work, we
previously settled on skunk, then merge with trunk, that was after I
tried developing experimental code directly in trunk unsuccessfully. I
think we need to clarify our development processes.
Peter.
