🚀 go-pugleaf

cbbrowne@news.hex.net (Christopher Browne) writes:
> 
> Optimistically, this hopefully means getting a stable application
> platform where it is relatively "safe" to do a bit of fiddling with one
> component or another without *too* much risk of making it all break. 
> 
> I'm a bit skeptical of that; my concern (that may not be well founded)
> is that the components may all depend on each other deeply enough that
> changes/upgrades may need to be done in a lockstep fashion:
>

There will probably be a certain amount of this. But it works out well
with the stable/devel release model; at some point you freeze the
interfaces, and don't change that version. Linux dists handle this
stuff well, too. Well, some do anyway. :-)
 
It's also advantageous to have lots of developers and have so many of
the apps in the same CVS repository.

> That's what I hope becomes the case.  I'm kind of hoping for a "shallow"
> user interface and "deep" CORBA functionality.  That is, keeping most of
> the functionality on the CORBA side, thus minimizing the amount of
> functionality sitting in the GUI. 
> 

This is just good design. I think a lot of the Gnome apps are so tiny
and basically functionality-free that they don't bother. The big ones
do this right though: gnumeric, gnomecal, etc. And those are the apps
that will use CORBA and so on.

Hopefully the free software theory really works, and unlike Windows
all the annoying little bugs will get chased down. With a high level
of code reuse, we really can debug only once... or at least, "less."
:-)

> I hear you.  Can I remain skeptical without being flamed for being an
> evil "anti-GNOME bigot"?  :-). 
> 

Sure. ;-) I'm not flaming, I'm discussing. :P

Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp