On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Frank Loeffler knarf@cct.lsu.edu wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:14:56PM -0500, Erik Schnetter wrote:
I think EOS_Omni is too young for that: if people need to do something completely different and bypass EOS_Omni, then there is something wrong with EOS_Omni.
I agree that we can wait with a decision here, but I don't agree with this argument.
What I have in mind is someone who wants to use a private EOS together with EOS_Omni, without having to maintain a private copy of EOS_Omni himself. I don't think that would be an unreasonable request.
Yes, I understand. I argue that our main effort at the moment should be to make EOS_Omni usable for us, and then see in how far others may need to do their own thing, and then decide how to make this possible. At the moment, everybody can just replace all of EOS_Omni with their own thorn, and this works fine. I would wait with adding an API to EOS_Omni that lets people use part of it (the key mechanism) until we're really using it ourselves, and until we feel that there is an actual need for people in the community to do their own thing.
A registry makes our code more complex, and makes it less likely that others contribute to EOS_Omni since they perceive the registry as the "official" way to add a new EOS. Adding a registry now looks like overdesigning to me.
-erik