I agree.

Just a piece of brainstorming for the tooling part: probably the Unit and the Assembly have different requirements for the kinds of actions a user want to perform on them.
So, we might need to consider introducing a stronger distinction between them.

Doru


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:06 AM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Stefan

I know about groups :) pretty well in fact. I did not put my name on the metacello chapter. I wrote it.
Now the point is that groups influenced people to provide Assembly configuration with many possible
uses and in reality this is difficult to propose solutions that work for everybody.

So the idea behind distinguishing between Units and Assembly is that
    - all Unit should express THEIR and only THEIR dependencies  and not potential usage loading unrelated tools (Ex Moose Algos in Moose)
    - based on well described Units, we can build after Assembly configuration covering common practices but also specific one.

This is like that in linux you have packages (units) and virtual package (assembly).

I think that doru and me are on the exact same wave length. I will sit with christophe this afternoon to see how we can
script the generation of Units based on some of our current ASSEMBLY.

Stef
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev



--
www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"