Re: future of LedgerSMB

["Joshua D. Drake" <..hidden..>]

Chris Travers wrote:
> We have something to gain.
> 
> If we rewrite the entire application at once, I am quite afraid it
> will never be completed simply because it is such a big task.
> Rewriting in Perl gives us the ability to have a useful application
> while we are working on it.

I am not really arguing which language, I am arguing direction. I kind
of think of this like the good old days of Linux where you had two
branches. Stable and Devel.

Our 1.2 branch is stable
Our 1.3/2.0 branch is devel

We have wholesale to do as we wish with 1.3/2.0. Why re-architect
something that is basically a rewrite anyway? You re-architect when the
original architecture was so flawed that you spend more time fixing than
creating anew.

Sound familiar?

>  I am sure after 2.0, there may be some
> cause to re-evaluate this.  But we will have to see then how much code
> there is in the V and C layers (which almost by definition cannot go
> in the db).
>

Agreed.


> Ok, to clarify-- allowing third party add-ons, providing some
> directional support, etc. happens today.  However, these are somewhat
> limited in scope by the factors described above.  I would expect this

And then break compatibility with those third party add-ons over and
over? Sounds like a good way to alienate our user base.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

-- 

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
             http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/