[CIMC-working] Re: da code bases

[Doug Morris]

Good then.

What's the decision process here... consensus at next meeting?

If so we need to get informed...

Do we need a technical assessment of sfactive vs dada.

Or since this is shorter term... should we just leap... if so...

I vote for dada.  quality rules.

At 06:35 PM 10/29/02 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
>On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 18:15, Doug Morris wrote:
> > Is it a good idea to explore switching to another code base, for extra
> > features (not colors :) when doing the server switch?
>
>I would really like to do this.  It's somewhat more work than just
>moving, but not a lot more work.  Another *big* advantage the other
>codebases have over Standard Active is documentation -- Standard has
>very little, and it's not all up-to-date.  If we want to be able to
>bring new or replacement people into the tech mix, that documentation
>will be very valuable.  Really, I *could* spend a day and read through
>the Standard code and understand it.  But that would just make CIMC more
>tied to a single person's skill and knowledge.
>
> > On rewrite of code:  I heard somewhere in last few months there was an
> > attempt to reconcile the innovations in various permutations of active and
> > come out with an active version 2.
>
>There's something provisionally called Active 2 (or HyperActive), but
>it's still a ways off (though development effort has increased lately).
>I think we need to think shorter term than that -- it's not at all clear
>how long until Active 2 will be in a usable state.
>
>   Ian