On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Chris Morgan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Alexandre Julliard > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Zachary Goldberg <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Alexandre Julliard <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Writing a DIB engine is not a fill-in-the-blanks exercise. A large part >>>> of the task is precisely to come up with a good design, validate it with >>>> a prototype, >>> >>> Would you, Alexandre, say we are at this point? I.e. that Massimo's >>> design is probably an alright prototype but he just hasn't convinced >>> you/Huw yet and hasn't yet "anticipated common objections" etc.? >> >> Well, the prototype doesn't show much evidence of a good design. Maybe >> Massimo has one in mind, but he hasn't explained it so far. >> >> -- >> Alexandre Julliard >> [email protected] >> > > Wouldn't a review of the proposed dib engine be useful? One that > included concerns, things that needed to be changed etc? Everyone > involved seems to be asking for leadership and guidance about how to > proceed, wouldn't a thorough review of the proposed design give > direction towards an "acceptable" design? > > Chris >
If it wasn't clear, I was suggesting that AJ and/or Huw would do this review since they have knowledge of the issue and an opinion of how it should be done :-) Chris
