robert burrell donkin ha scritto: > provided the code is factored correctly and the build is modular, it can > > the abstract socket/protocol handlers should be factored into > libraries. functions should depend on whatever libraries they require. > when factored in this fashion, new and old implementations can life > side-by-side.
I see this only as a complication of something that already is not working. New and old implementation difference is in the socket/protocol stuff: you should duplicate everything (in-tree branch). BTW, even if I don't think this will help us being more agile, *IF* you, or anyone else intending to work there prefer to use this approach I've nothing at all against it. > i would really like to see the experimental handlerapi stuff moved > into trunk as a socket library, protocol layer and experimental > function. this would require some repackaging of some code in the > branch but i don't see why this should be a major issue. It was an experiment. I and Norman was happy with it but we abandoned that goal after the "facts" happened in past. I just moved back the STATUS file to the original place and updated the next-minor/next-major ETAs (no longer valid as they was in past) and updated the status of the handlerapi branch to "dead/experiment complete". Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
