[mailto:owner-mail-ng(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 3:16 PM
To: Markus Stumpf
Subject: Re: user-visible goals
A brief recap: Victor Engmark decried "patches" but said that
a next-generation system should have "flexibility" via "extensions".
Do you disagree regarding "flexibility" and "extensions"?
If not, can you provide a useful, objective set of
definitions to distinguish a "patch" from an "extension".
I would distinguish a "patch" from an "extension" by looking at the
functionality and need for it:
- a "patch" does not provide new functionality, but is needed for the
system to be able to fulfill one or more basic requirements;
- an "extension" provides new functionality, but is not needed for the
system to fulfill the basic requirements.
The basic requirements should be predefined, and can change over time,
making an "extension" essentially a "patch" as demands increase.
More extensive definitions can be found at
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditar - What is said in latin,