[xen-tools] Re: More changes

[Steve Kemp]

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
--