Darren J Moffat wrote: > Jim Li wrote: >> Torrey: >>>>> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other >>>>> projects come across lately that integrate functionality that >>>>> matches an other project? Why would this be different? >>>> I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, >>>> personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams >>>> delivering >>>> related projects are talking together and formulating their plans with >>>> each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common dependencies, >>>> etc. At least aware of each other. >>> All of engineering gets the ARC case submittal forms, right? ;) >>> >>> Seriously - I agree with you. One thing I'm sure we'll see is >>> fighting mime types of file extensions in a lot of cases. >> Mime types of file extensions issue exists in all kind of systems, so >> IMHO this is not a ARC issue. > > > This is actually a place where there should be some architectural > input. If there are two tools A and B that have an overlap in the > mime types they operate on their is architectural impact in which is > the default. There may also be architectural impact on how the user > should change which is the default tool for a given mime type. I > suspect that in most cases the management tool for the mime types is > already covered by GNOME and/or Firefox/Thunberbird. However we > should know and document at least in an ARC case which tool is the > default if there are multiple for a given mime type. > Great suggestion. we should discuss with planner team if we have the overlap of the project file extension, if so, which tools should be the default one that deal with this file extension and document this kind of stuff in our ARC case, correct?
Thanks Jim > For example if we ship A B and C that are all audio player tools which > one should be the default (for a new user environment) for playing a > given audio file format ? >
