+ 1
this is why we need to work on that :)
Giveme money :)

Stef

On 12 mars 07, at 22:31, Roel Wuyts wrote:

> Indeed. I think we need both. In the same model.
>
> On 12 Mar 2007, at 12 March/08:32, Andreas Raab wrote:
>> Roel Wuyts wrote:
>>> Andreas, I prefer refactoring, but refactoring assumes a closed  
>>> world approach where you control all the pieces of the puzzle.
>>
>> I would call access to all pieces of the puzzle "open" not  
>> "closed" but be that as it may...
>>
>>> It simply is not always possible to refactor (because you do not  
>>> have the source, because you do not want to create a fork,  
>>> because you have other programs that absolutely rely on the old  
>>> behaviour, etc.). In that case extending the existing software  
>>> from within your own package helps, but should be used sparingly  
>>> for all the reasons you mention.
>>> Note that a decent module system should support both.
>>
>> Which I have advocated earlier myself. I have never doubted that  
>> there are situation in which patching another module is  
>> advantageous and desirable. Which is why I don't understand why  
>> some people are so opposed to the idea of having the other end of  
>> the spectrum (isolation) available as well.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>   - Andreas
>>
>
>
>