re: Flow integration

Daniel Vainsencher <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let me summarize the points so far -
[Snipped a GOOD summary]

I still think we are maybe attacking this from the wrong angle. I like
Colin's, Avi's and Cees' postings - why do we have to make these
decisions now? Again - there should not be anything going *into* the
image - we all agreed on that. Stuff should be going *out* from the
image.

	So make the Flow package able to coexist with the old stuff.

And not by changing the old stuff - that is again IMHO a very image
centric approach. Just because all uses in the image have been fixed
does NOT mean all breakage has been fixed. Just take Croquet, Seaside
whatever is out there. There may even be secret proprietary code out
there breaking.

Obviously this is doable and the arguments for it:

- No old code will break
- Flow can coexist with the old code in the image

...seems IMHO to clearly outweigh the arguments against it. People can
then easily choose which package to rely on.

This would make Flow a dependable package. Also break out the current
networking into a package and have that be blessed to start with. Then
if people in time migrate over to using Flow and Flow gets "battle
tested" etc. - *then* we can start looking at blessing Flow instead of
the old package. But that decision is a long way into the future.

regards, Göran

PS. Or am I missing something?