[xen-tools] Re: More changes

[C.J. Adams-Collier]

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.