RE: Need more detail.

[Reinhard Müller]

Vio,

first of all: Thanks for your feedback.

> From a technical point of view, this sounds fine and well. But from
> a business point of view, this sounds pretty low level, if I may say
> so. As a business manager I would like to know how do I model
> business processes in this environment ? By sticking business
> objects together ?  Hence the need for predefined business objects
> (a la IBM's SanFrancisco package) ? Any graphical interface for this
> task (a Dia front, I presume) would be a blessing, unless business
> managers want to learn how to write .cld scripts (???) 

Actually I see a business process as business objects sticked together
in a defined manner and order. I don't see anything bad in doing that.
My experience with tools that let you model business processes and
generate applications from it (read: stick the objects together correctly)
look great, but don't work in practice. Nevertheless we can try to build
such a modeller later. But frist we have to make the clay before we can
model :)
Until then, business managers (um, let's say IT consultants) can write
.cld files by hand. :)
Ok, and we'll probably have a front end to model business _objects_
(not processes) graphically, someday.

> Obviously I don't have all the data at my disposal,
> but I don't get it (some help would be nice) ! Why
> the developpement of a new file format (.cld) for what,
> at first impression, looks to me like normal class
> definitions, with the addition of "triggers" (like database
> triggers ?) hereby called "business objects". Couldn't
> those fit just as well in normal .py files ?
>  - Just some early feedback.

Why a new file format? Well, we found no existing one
that fits the purpose (to be complete and thus simple
to write).

> > Ok. End of technical stuff here. Now some personal remarks.
> > 
> > We (the core team) would be very happy about ANY comment to the above
> > (at least this is true for me :) - as long as we can keep it technical.
> > (Sorry that we (or at least I) are (am) no longer interested in 
> > philosophical
> > flame wars).

> Sorry about that. But thanks for pointing it out as unacceptable behavior.
> Let's focus on the technical.

That was _not_ personally at you. I didn't have "your" flames in mind, but 
rather
the 100 others that were before during the last year :)

Thanks,
Reinhard