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.