On 5/6/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Please don't judge until we are done.
Silence can be taken to imply consent, and if people with questions don't speak up now, then other people might be disappointed later, when a binding veto lands on the table.
We need to first agree on our design goals, then we can pick through implementations. The proposal is about agreeing to the laid out design goals, but it is too early to say that we are or aren't meeting them. First cuts are never put into production as is, and this API is no different. Besides, even if we did finally go with something more sweeping, to make it acceptable under the original agreed upon proposal, we'd have to ensure existing apps would be able to migrate in hours so you can be sure the end user will have a smooth migration. Otherwise, we'd have to move the API to a new version.
+1 Under the original proposal, the community agreed that the goal is for Action 2.0 to be a smooth *transition* for WebWork developers and as smooth a migration as we can make it for Action 1 developers. Of course, we all want to continue to improve the framework, and under the original proposal we agreed that more ambitious improvements are to take place in a second phase, which may be a 2.1 or 3.0 series. It's healthy to have these discussions, but we do not want to create unrealistic expectations of what can be accomplished in the SAF 2.0 timeframe.
What we need here is cooperation and a willingness to compromise and follow a common path that may not be exactly what everyone wants, but it is what the community agreed is best for the project and its users.
True, and the community has already agreed that Action 2.0 will be a transitional release. If we agree that some or all of the proposed API changes are transitional, and if someone actually comes up with a patch, and if we accept the patch, then fine. But there is no shortages of *ifs* in that statement. We do *not* want to give people the impression that by having these discussions, we have decided to change course and revoke the original agreement.
My guess is you will always think a new API goes too far, Bob will think it doesn't go far enough, and the rest of the developers will lie along that spectrum. We could either fight every step of the way to force our point of view, or we could work together to find a common vision. I think we owe it to our users to do the latter.
Hmmm, I can't think of a *user* to whom we owe more than Jason -- or Patrick -- or Toby -- or Rainer -- or anyone else who not only *uses* the framework but also makes concrete contributions to the code and documentation. We all are users. -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
