Re: Re: Roadmap?

It seams to me that there are always a lot of comments on this list 
about usability and documentation. Perhaps lowering the learning curve 
should be the next major focus of development.

Jeremy

Diez B. Roggisch wrote:

>Hi,
>
>  
>
>>But couple of my questions still remains. What is the roadmap of
>>Barracuda? What next? Any plans on anything?
>>You said - "like configurable bindings between events and classes - are
>>available in core barracuda. " Could you please talk a lil more about
>>what bindings exist other than application assembler?
>>    
>>
>
>That was what I was talking about - application assembler :) 
>
>I have to say that I personally don't like late binding too much - at least 
>not in java. In python its a wonderful thing, but... in Java, I _have_ to 
>deal with the compiler anyway, so I want to make it puke on me whenever I try 
>to stitch things together the wrong way.
>
>I also don't like configurable forms too much - no disrespect for Stefan's 
>work here! - its just that unless you have a very generic persistence layer 
>which basically only deals with key-value-pairss, you'll always have to 
>somehow ensure that your form maps properly to your data objects. And I 
>prefer that to be done at compiletime, or at least by people (developers so 
>to speak) that know what they are doing :) So from my POV you don't get much 
>from letting others define what forms you have to deal with. But thats only 
>my personal opinion!
>
>Regarding a general roadmap - I think barracuda is quite "complete" for what 
>it tries to do. There are some fields I'd think that could be useful 
>(serverside scriptable template directives) so that layout guys can do more 
>with whatever data model is provided to them - but aside from that, I don't 
>see much. Or maybe better tool integration - but for me beeing a console/
>(x)emacs freak, thats not too much. What just this second as I'm writing 
>springs to mind is that maybe xdoclets for creating forms based on 
>data-objects might be a good idea.
>
>But basically every greater step we take from here would lead to the road to 
>application server land. Which is a thing I'm not so sure I want to go. But 
>again, this is my opinion. 
>
>So finally - there is no general roadmap in the moment, which might be because 
>back then barracuda was more to be integrated with enhydra, which covered a 
>lot of aspects you might come up with.
>
>Regards,
>
>Diez
>
>_______________________________________________
>Barracuda mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://barracudamvc.org/lists/listinfo/barracuda
>
>  
>