On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:02:28 +0100 Armin Hornung wrote: > On 03/09/2012 10:35 AM, Stéphane Magnenat wrote: > > Hello, > > > >> I would be interested in such an interface, but I'm not sure if > >> enough other people are to justify a REP (comments, anyone?). > >> Maybe you just go on and define these messages in a separate > >> message package (what about the name htn_msgs or > >> htn_planning_msgs?), and others can adapt it. > > > > Yes, I will put messages in their own packages. Is it ok if for now > > they are in planner9's stack or you would like a specific stack for > > them? > > My personal opinion in general goes towards messages in their own > stacks, as I have been affected multiple times by large dependencies > being pulled in sooner or later. Fully agree on that. Also, since you (Stéphane) seem to be using Git, I would stick to the "one stack per Git repo" rule. If you're sure you'll never have another package in that stack, you could make the stack unary. > On the level of released packages, > you don't gain anything by putting the messages in their own package > (the stacks dependencies remain). You're right about the stack dependencies, but even so I believe one should always put messages into a separate package, even if it is in the same stack, because of licensing issues (msgs should always be BSD or comparable) and compilation time. Cheers, Martin -- Dipl.-Inf. Martin Günther Universität Osnabrück Institut für Informatik Albrechtstr. 28 (Raum 31/503) D-49076 Osnabrück Fon: 0541 969 2434 http://www.inf.uos.de/mguenthe/