This makes sense. I will convert the Xen-Tools-0.1 directory
structure into a patch against the xen-tools directory structure and
submit.
On 9/1/07, Steve Kemp <steve_at_steve.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 12:35:08 +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
>
> > The only significant difference between my thoughts and
> > your proposed design is that I regard the modularisation
> > as primarily an *implementation detail*.
>
> This leads to my conclusion which I should have included
> too:
>
> I'm happy to accept design suggestions, code, and
> general feedback on how much should be modularized
> and how it should work.
>
> But:
>
> I'm not keen on a stand-alone collection of modules
> which do this kind of job. And, as previously stated,
> if such a collection of modules/code were released I'd
> hope it would have no name which allowed xen-tools/
> Xen::Tools confusion.
>
> I'm hoping that the combined way forward would be to
> implement modules which would be useful to others for
> the rare case when such a thing would be desired, but
> like the idea that the binaries are the preferred tool
> for other users, and that they are the primary consumer(s)
> of any modular API which is used.
>
> Too little sleep, that'll do for today.
>
> Steve
> --
>
>
>
--
moo.
Received on Sat Sep 01 2007 - 16:42:11 BST