Re: frysk-core/frysk/proc ChangeLog IsaIA32.java I ...

[Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>]

Hi Phil,

On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 09:56 -0500, Phil Muldoon wrote:
> However, I think the larger picture here, and I think is lost in the 
> "change over discussion" trend, is that the current proc model is pretty 
> faulty in some of its assumptions and really needs refactoring. For the 
> last six months I've been working on tweaking this and that so that 
> Proc/Task/Host is not live process specific. So in the longer to mid 
> term there really needs to be a rethink of that model.. 

Yes I think you hit the actual issue. I agree.

And I think that was why I was so disappointed about the process. A
design discussion is good and I thought that was what we were having.
But all we got in the end was an imho random renaming of a perfectly
good package name without any real design discussion. Cleaning up after
such a change isn't that hard and that was indeed not what I was angry
about. Although of course I rather not see extra work in the first
place. I would have happily done that work if I got the feeling there
was a real cleaned up design coming that couldn't be done without such a
renaming of packages. But that didn't emerge from the discussion at all.
And you are right that was what the discussion should have been about.

Cheers,

Mark