On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:01 PM, John (J5) Palmieri <johnp(a)redhat.com> wrote
> Or do J5 have different view about this?, both idea ( improve
> / improve PackageDB ) sounds okay to me, just that I feel that if
> MyFedora implements those features, PackageDB and the effort made for
> it previously would be rendered of no-use (or perhaps thats what one
> of MyFedora's goal - to obsolete packagedb ) ..
There is a balance here. For everything I have to pull from there is a
cost in terms of calls I have to make to different backends per page
along with the extra work to recreate the GUI for each module. The
different backends are taking a tools centric approach to manipulating
data where as My Fedora takes a more data centric approach (here is the
data how would I like to manipulate and display). I agree the data side
In other words, instead of calling interfaces provided by these
backends (which is, obviously, more costly) , MyFedora will be
directly access the databases and manipulate the data to be in a more
user-centric and useful views (am I right?).
of it should be part of PackageDB but unless someone really wants
work on a separate PackageDB UI I would just have that be a simple dump
of the database in a slightly nicer form.
In any case my thoughts on the subject are logged somewhere else in the
thread where I talk about Apps vs. Packages and how a separate app would
look different from a My Fedora app. Read there.
I couldnt find the thread, is it in this list or another list?. iirc
i've read it before. an App may have multiple Packages.
John (J5) Palmieri <johnp(a)redhat.com>
Mohd Izhar Firdaus Bin Ismail
天野晃 「あまの ひかる」
92C2 B295 B40B B3DC 6866 5011 5BD2 584A 8A5D 7331