From: Costin Manolache
So my suggestion ( deja vue ? ) is to use "evolution" :-). A change in the OO model ( if needed ) or fixing/improving the current one is not as big change as it seems - it's mostly in initialization code.
How about 'revolution'? On the other hand how does the evolution differs from revolution?
My point was that fixing/improving the current code - maybe by first fixing the object model, then adding modules - is better than starting from scratch or trying to make a huge change at once.
and...
If we don't put ourselfs out from 'reusable' concept, nothing new will ever
be done thought. Trying to reclyle something, as you nicely said "stable and done", is
poinntless from the '(r)evolution' perspective.
It's not "recycle" - but improve. And I don't know why you feel it's pointless.
Either we'll do (like Monty Pyton's said) something completely different, or we'll be once again asking ourselfs the same questions for year or so, and the guys will still use the JK or swith to something else.
Doing something completely different for the sake of doing it different and without understanding or knowing what is wrong with the current approach is not going to lead us to something better - just different.
So far I haven't heard any concrete proposal of doing something different - just nice goals ( "easier config", etc ). IMO using JMX-like
model you can support almost any config needs - zeroconf/randezvous/etc.
And the performance is result of lots of work and tunning - I never seen any "rewrite from scratch, completely different" project to be faster ( at least not in less than few years ). Same for stability BTW.
Costin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
