John Plocher wrote: > Joseph Kowalski wrote: >> Either as a TCR, or as a requirement of the case, they don't integrate >> until it happens, so I fail to see what is gained. > > It lets the ARC review reach closure quicker, which is good for all > concerned. Quicker, but unfortunately with a high probability of being wrong. >> I'm not willing to allow a project to integrate with a structure which >> assumes one delivery model which may not be in-line with the Best >> Practice they are asked to deliver. > > Neither am I - go back and reread what I wrote, including the part > where I said > "codifies the ... design pattern that it used". I presume that the > rest of this > review will sort out the specific requirements for that > design-pattern, which > then (by definition) will be in-line with what they need to write about. > > Based on this conversation, I predict that the design pattern will be > either > 1) Do it "Just like Perl" and "Just like Java", or > 2) Don't do it like Perl of Java, instead do it <some other way> > instead. > > For the life of me, I don't know why you are pushing "door number 2", > but that seems to be your target... I need to check the Perl cases (still), but I don't think there was a Policy. A vaguely remember this was to potentially allow "rolling upgrade",but I'm not sure about this.
It ain't gonna be like Java. As I said, it has a lot of infrastructure and motivation I doubt this project team will be willing to take on. (Actually, any project team importing freeware.) Hence, its not that "I'm pushing door number 2". Its that I'm fairly confident that its not "door number 1". (As I said, need to check what we said about Perl.) >> As Advisory, there is no guarantee it ever happens. > > Again, my wording was "TCR - articulate this design pattern", which is > not > an Advisory at all. I'm at an absolute loss as to how you expect us to approve something we haven't seen. Do you regularly hand out blank checks? > The only decoupling I was looking for was the wordsmithing of the BP > itself, > not the determination of the proper design pattern. But its not just wordsmithing into a best practice. Its defining a yet undefined policy. > -John - jek3
