[Portland] PortlandVFSProposal

[Martin Konold]

Am Samstag, 7. Januar 2006 21:46 schrieb nf2:

Hi,

please reply directly to the list and try to avoid to send copies to list 
members. 

This is necessary in order not to break the threading and the archive.

(I don't feel confident enough to request to fix the "reply-to header" of this 
ml)

> majority of the PortlandIntegrationTasks could also be solved with
> common infrastructure.

The problem with common infrastructure is that it really slows down innovation 
significantly.

> cases like "there is no VFS library installed". Because of the
> late-binding. It's a wild mix of layers, the most abstruse example is
> probably this out-of process popping up filedialogs.

What is the assumed disadvantage of an out-of-process file dialog?

>
> >In general I believe that standardizing on interfaces or better protocolls
> > is much better with regards to future innovation compared to
> > standardizing on implementation.
>
> Infrastructure libraries can also be improved/replaced behind a
> standardized interface. They could even serve multiple major versions of
> an interface (by providing compatibility stubs - using differend
> namespaces for function names).

Well, the applications will always be using the old interface because this is 
the only interface the application can rely upon.

> I wouldn't say that the "adapter approach" is bad, but some things
> (out-of-process file- or printdialogs) look quite frightening...

Please explain.

Regards,
-- martin

-- 
http://www.erfrakon.com/
Erlewein, Frank, Konold & Partner - Beratende Ingenieure und Physiker