Re: re: Flow integration

Goran,

> PS. Or am I missing something?

No. Those are my points exactly. Thanks for summarizing.

Cheers,
  - Andreas

> 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?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> 

-- 
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!