2010/8/30 Miguel Enrique Cob� Mart�nez
<miguel.coba@gmail.com>
El lun, 30-08-2010 a las 18:25 +0300, Igor Stasenko escribi�:
> My 2 cents about WebClient.
>
> - it should be an (un)loadable external package, and i am fully agree
> with Andreas on this point.
> It is tempting to integrate it into image, do some tweaks here and
> there and then ship it within a monolitic image.
> But then, from maintainer's point of view, it is quite hard to keep
> developing it and improving, since it may break
> things in random places over multiple forks etc etc, and then who will
> be accused in such breakage? - a maintainer.
Of course not, we, the ones using it as part of our core image are the
ones responsible of the correct functioning in our image. It would be
childish to run crying to Andreas that it break our image because we are
taking the decision of integrating it in the core image. Now, this of
course doesn't apply to core functionality or that breaks the contract
the code offers to its clients. That type of API changes will be
discussed with Andreas and if no solution found, the pharo developers
will found a workaround so that is remains working correctly.
Agree with Miguel. It is the smae situation as Gofer.� Lukas is the main developer of Gofer but we (pharo developers) maintain it. When a message is removed or renamed for example, we take care about its senders, for all packages, included Gofer. And we are the responsible, not Lukas.
�
What I don't understand is why such imposition to the way of use the
software. If it decided to have an open source license he can't restrict
the uses of the software. This is a real open source implications.
>
> It is good to have a person, who personally responsible for
> maintaining a package, or even if by a group of people,
> it should use a separate repository for developing it.
>
> Otherwise, if you integrate it into image, by doing that you:
> �- losing a maintainer , who willingly contributing to this project
> �- in same turn, must take own responsibility for maintaining it,
> which means extra work for you, whenever you having
> � problems with it.
Of course, that is the point. Nobody expects otherwise.
>
> We should learn how to integrate things without intimately tying
> everything with a single bloated image.
Isn't as we are integrating moose or seaside in the core image is a
basic infrastructure thing, a http client, that every modern language in
the current times includes in their core libraries (java, ruby, lisp).
> And WebClient could be right thing for learning that (Seaside too ;).
>
--