[Dev] Objection to the new CPIA example

[Philippe Bossut]

I'm not opposed to a Hello Word example taking shortcuts to make the 
CPIA structure apparent and easier to understand as long as it's not 
advertized as a way of coding Chandler. So whatever is under 
chandler/parcels/samples is probably OK with me. We certainly can 
improve it to make clearer that this is "educative code" not "Chandler 
template".

I'm a little bit more concerned though by the changes to 
chandler/parcels/osaf/ files included with that commit. I'm reluctant to 
see any kind of modification at that point of the release cycle for the 
unique incentive of writing example code and doc. Only bug fixes should 
be allowed there.

Could we have the example written without changes to the Chandler core code?

Cheers,
- Philippe

John Anderson wrote:

>
>
> Heikki Toivonen wrote:
>
>>Bryan Stearns wrote:
>>  
>>
>>>The change below is supposed to be an example, but much of it introduces
>>>a new mechanism for associating detail views with items, and the example
>>>just shows how to use that. At the meeting last week where John proposed
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>I agree with you. I would have expected the example to be self contained
>>in the samples directory, and it to use the recommended methods
>>currently available and use in Chandler without introducing new things.
>>An example that is coded differently from the real Chandler seems less
>>valuable than an example that shows and explains how we really do things.
>>
>>If John discovered a better, new way to do things, we should discuss
>>whether or not we should take that change separately and convert ALL of
>>our current ways into that. I think this late in 0.6 we shouldn't.
>>  
>>
> My proposal is not a replacement for our current mechanism. Instead 
> it's only for the special case where you only want a single view for 
> your item, not a view made up of combined types like we do when whe 
> combine kinds with stamping. It has the advantage of making the hello 
> world sample much smaller and simpler than it otherwise would be -- 
> and doesn't preclude extension to the normal detail view case.
>
>>  
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>>
>>Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
>>http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>  
>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
>Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
>http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>  
>