On Apr 18, 2015, at 2:18 AM, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: > I found strange that not a single little improvements of Magritte was > necessary for the Qude project.
It’s not strange to me, because when working with Magritte 2, it seemed that almost everything I wanted to do had a hook method to override, or an obvious place to subclass or extend. So much so, that when I could not find the extension point, I thought it was my fault. What was missing was instance-based descriptions, which was added by the community in Magritte 3. Given how well-factored Magritte 2 was, my deduction was that a lot of effort had already been done to extract out an open-source artefact, from whatever system drove it’s development. So, no surprise that few improvements to the core Magritte were needed. > Now if heavy users of open-source libraries do not enhance these open-source > libraries and keep their extensions > under close source then the open-source libraries will never make progress > and I will immensely sad. Given that Magritte is already well-factored for extensions, what tends to be written is exactly the custom code which you would not be releasing to open-source. However, there might be a case for add-ons, such as Twitter Bootstrap support. As mentioned in another post, changing the Magritte API/interfaces at this point is tricky, because it would affect current users - that’s the conundrum: success and wider adoption will constrain the evolution. The addition of instance-based descriptions was worth the (minor) pain of the transition, but what level of pain would be tolerable to add Bootstrap support, especially if you’re not using Bootstrap.
