On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:02:28 +0100
Armin Hornung <
HornungA@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> 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/
(text/plain)