Re: [Evolution-hackers] Merging the collaboration providers in a single package



On Tuesday 19 October 2010 Suman Manjunath wrote:
> [...] 
> b) If we put all the providers together, and this is from what I've
> seen happening, there is this tendency for code to get duplicated.
> Along with good designs, sometimes bad designs also get duplicated.

From an Evo newbies' perspective (and maybe somewhat off-topic): In evolution-
kolab, we currently duplicate Camel's IMAPX provider. This is caused by the 
fact that we're _not_ part of the E-D-S sources but organized as a standalone 
plugin.

If we _were_ part of E-D-S, we wouldn't have duplicated IMAPX but used a non-
exposed Camel API instead, which is not a clean solution either.

So, if there is code duplication, IMHO one can always put the question as to 
*why* the duplication happened. It may or may not be caused by how the sources 
are managed. Stuffing all groupware providers into one location may or may not 
cause duplication, and if it does, there may be reasons which would benefit 
from a rework anyway (like, e.g., isolating dupes and put the intersection of 
sets into some own lib).

Duplication of bad design (rather than code) is another matter, for sure. (I 
wouldn't dupe a bad design - I'd rather think up my own (bad design ;-)).

1 cent,

	Christian

-- 
kernel concepts GbR        Tel: +49-271-771091-14
Sieghuetter Hauptweg 48    Fax: +49-271-771091-19
D-57072 Siegen
http://www.kernelconcepts.de/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]