Florent Guillaume wrote: > I'd like to add that even if having shared components from the start > would be nice, it's not always possible for many reasons, like time > constraints, framework scope, different visions... In particular I > don't think it's necessarily a handicap to have separate > implementations this early in the game, if all parties are interested > in learning from the others and working toward factorization when > possible. > > Rome wasn't built in a day... I am not trying to discourage anyone here; this is merely an observation: While I understand and appreciate your position, it is also true that the current situation in Plone/CPS/CMF/Silva/etc land we are trying to remedy comes from exactly the reasons you point to above, where infrastructure components where not shared enough or were too tightly integrated to specific products. So I view this as a handicap and actually as one of the major issues wrt co-operation in z3land. If tight deadlines are a motive for doing custom, possibly incompatible changes in infrastructure components, then it is possible that other future tight deadlines will make it very hard to do any actual factorisation. Then we have a situation where we have competing infrastructure components. Should this situation arise, I believe that it is very hard to remedy afterwards. But that is just me, and caveat empor: I am not betting my business model on this, so take my views as an observation and nothing else. Still it may be worthwhile to have these in mind. /dario -- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Lopez-Kästen, IT Systems & Services Chalmers University of Tech. "...and click? damn, I need to kill -9 Word again..." - b using macosx
Hosting: Nuxeo: Zope service provider