Re: Switching frameworks (was: what about adding spring ?)

Ronny Voelker wrote:
> 
> Johannes Hoechstaedter:
> The Scarab code itself is at least partly almost unusable. It's full of
> unnecessary complexity, redundancy and obsolete code. It's hard to
> understand and that's why hard to change or extend.
> 
> That's why refactoring should have a top priority, imo. I think a well
> refactored Scarab could have half the size of the current code base or
> even less, and be much easier to understand and more stable.
> 
> This would make it much easier to add new functionality and also to switch
> to a new framework.
> In fact I think refactoring is the prerequisite for integrating major new
> functionality and switching frameworks.
> 
> It has not to be done in isolation, but it has to be done.
> 
> Ronny
> 
If we are going to refactor Scarab (i am trying some very first steps right
now on the GUI side), 
wouldn't it be nice to directly refactor "into the final framework" ? 
I also thought about first refactoring, then adding a framework. But having
the framework right 
at hand while refactoring sounds like getting some guidelines to me and less
work at the end...

Doing it the other way (first refactor, then add framework) would possibly
duplicate work. 
But i never refactored a project like Scarab into a framework like Spring,
so i may well be 
fooled by wishfull thinking...

Hussayn
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/what-about-adding-spring---tp21418409p21433870.html
Sent from the Scarab - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------------------------------
http://scarab.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=455&dsMessageId=1021691

To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [[email protected]].