Re: Somedude responds to criticism

On Thursday 22 January 2009 12:16, Florent Daigniere wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Thursday 22 January 2009 10:43, Florent Daigniere wrote:
> >>>>> FMS is not non-fixable. You just don't care about it.
> >>>> We don't bundle jSite, Thaw or Thingamablog either, even though they 
are
> >>>> written in Java. Because they are separate, non-integrated, standalone
> >>>> applications that we don't have control over and don't have the 
resources 
> > to
> >>>> review. FMS could conceivably be somewhat less separate in that FMS 
could
> >>>> link to the freenet web interface and vice versa, but given that we 
have
> >>>> Freetalk, which is integrated properly and has a better architecture, 
why
> >>>> bother?
> >>> Depends on what "architecture" means.
> >>> If you means the message format -- maybe.
> >>> If you means the class structure, program flow, etc -- it's not.
> >>>
> >>> This can be very subjective -- you may ask nextgen to see if he agree.
> >>>
> >>> The code problems I known in FMS is local -- just change one or two
> >>> line in a function.
> >>> The code problems I known in FreeTalk/WoT involve refactoring.
> >>> In this sense, I consider FMS more maintainable.
> >> My guess is that by architecture toad means "separation in between WoT 
> >> and Freetalk". I do agree with him that fms's approach (one WoT 
> >> per-application) is not the way to go.
> >>
> >> Regarding Somedude's reactivity/responsivity, I do have a different 
> >> experience: I sent two patches to him through the FMS board, none of 
> >> them got applied... And at least one of them (a trivial patch fixing the 
> >> build process on macos) should have been without any further discussion.
> >>
> >> Regarding Freetalk itself, well I haven't reviewed the code yet so I 
> >> won't comment. From what I have seen (some shared classes ended in the 
> >> node's package!) it's a mess.
> > 
> > What's wrong with putting shared classes in the node? It seems the most 
> > practical solution right now?
> > 
> 
> It's ugly design-wise, it's silly to keep (apparently) unused classes 
> around, ...
> 
> Long term solution is plugin-dependencies... But I have already made a 
> case for them iirc.

And I will try to get plugin dependancies and plugin updating in before 0.8, 
but it seems very doubtful at this point. However, I don't see Freetalk/WoT 
being useful and maintainable without it...

_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
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=93o5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----