RE: moving forward—with a plan

On Monday, May 30, 2016 7:44 PM, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
> On 28.05.2016 20:35, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 6:42 AM, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
>> > But I have to disagree strongly with the approach you propose. Why
>> > should we now, after years of discussion and slow progress, just
>> > stumble into implementation when we are almost done with some parts?
>> 
>> To ensure they work for instance :-) 
>> 
>> > This applies to the collection design and some other issues. This
>> > would blindly waste resources in my opinion. So
>> 
>> How so? We could implement the current proposals and see whether they
>> solve the issues they are supposed to solve. But maybe I don't
>> understand what you had in mind.
> 
> Well let me make this more tangible then:
> Why would we implement (be it a piece of code for the client or the
> server side)
> the current collection model if the new design is already ratified?!

Oh I see now. This is a misunderstanding. I didn't not propose to implement the old model. In fact, it didn't go into much detail at all about what to implement yet I just put a primary focus on the client side.


> Sorry but that's __obviously__ a waste of resources.

Yes. Do you agree that implementing the new proposal (or a variation thereof) would be valuable before "ratifying it"?


> The same applies to some other topics.
> Also -- as outlined in my previous mail -- I see at least on fundamental
> decision (filtering/ querying)
> that should be decided before start implementing helter-skelter now.
> I think most people on the list have the ability
> to discuss these matters on an abstract level.

I don't doubt anyone's ability, I just observed that we weren't very efficient moving forward using that approach. This is an attempt to change that. Obviously there are no guarantees that this approach will be more successful but I think it's worth a try.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Monday, 30 May 2016 19:58:13 UTC