On 5/10/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if the experiment is to change how modules are working together?
> (Current modules have very tight coupling.) This would have to be done
> on a branch nevertheless, if we wouldn't want to break what's in
> TRUNK.
IMHO loosening the coupling is necessary to take JAMES forward in any case
+1
> The motiviations for the proposal are very valid. We need a way to
> "plug-in" (experimental) functionality (modules).
> Today, we fork the whole James Server in branches/sandbox. This is
> bad. We must have an architecture where we can (more) easily plug in
> modules, whereever they come from (sandbox/third party).
+1
+1
whilst people are all just working in their personal branches, there
is no incentive to maintain or change the common code base in trunk.
the code bases are drifting apart and the longer this goes on, the
less chance that anyone will ever be able to put then back together.
+1
i think that this approach is bad for the development community. by
each working in our own personal branch, we lose sight of each other's
code. we cannot learn from each other and we cannot share libraries.
trunk is unlikely to be released any time soon and i think that this
is an ideal time to experiment with our process. we can try
experimental modules without great risk. if they haven't worked then
we can abandon them before the next release.
I share Stefano's concern about creating extra work/complications, but
I think the improved collaboration and the goal of better
modularization are two good things.
--
Serge Knystautas
Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com
p. 301.656.5501
e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
