Subject: Foo scalibility (was Re: Reuse - is it for real?)
From: "Karsten M. Self" <>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 06:47:05 +0000

<continuing to catch up on dead threads>

"Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
> >>>>> "Crispin" == Crispin Cowan <> writes:

>     Crispin>    * Open source approach: I really like the Foo
>     Crispin> application, but I wish it had a Bar feature. <hack hack
>     Crispin> hack> There, now it has a bar feature.
> The standard objection to this in the management literature is that it
> doesn't scale.

Doesn't scale to large Bar, or doesn't scale to many Bars, or both?

If issue is that feature extension doesn't scale to large feature
extensions, this might be a feature <g>.  If tackling a problem in
general involves dividing it into bite-sized, approachable pieces, then
tackling functionality enhancements in OS may mean subdividing the
functionality into atomic components capable of being addressed by a
very small group (say 1-5) of developers, on a part-time basis.  Makes
for long-term survivability, as the compenents than are long-term
maintainable.  Functionality may lag to point of sufficiently
modularized design.

My random US$2e10-2
> I can say, personally, having a lot of experience with a particular
> Bar feature (Japanese input/output/massaging capability), that some
> Bar features added by this approach
>     o waste effort because the Bar programmer doesn't care about Foo's
>       design or coding standards, resulting in a new patch with every
>       re-release of Foo
>     o create lots of bad will in the community because of the politics
>       revolving around integrating Bar into the mainstream Foo code
>       base.

Karsten M. Self (
    What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?

SAS for Linux:
Mailing list:  "subscribe sas-linux" to    
 11:38pm  up 2 days, 13:44,  2 users,  load average: 0.24, 0.14, 0.10