RE: user-visible goals

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 3:16 PM
> To: Markus Stumpf
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: user-visible goals

> A brief recap: Victor Engmark decried "patches" but said that 
> a next-generation system should have "flexibility" via "extensions".
> 
> Do you disagree regarding "flexibility" and "extensions"?
> 
> If not, can you provide a useful, objective set of 
> definitions to distinguish a "patch" from an "extension".

I would distinguish a "patch" from an "extension" by looking at the
functionality and need for it:
- a "patch" does not provide new functionality, but is needed for the
system to be able to fulfill one or more basic requirements;
- an "extension" provides new functionality, but is not needed for the
system to fulfill the basic requirements.

The basic requirements should be predefined, and can change over time,
making an "extension" essentially a "patch" as demands increase.

More extensive definitions can be found at
http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid40_gci2127
53,00.html and
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci212088,00.html (2).

Yours sincerely,
-- 
Victor Engmark
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditar - What is said in latin,
sounds profound