Proposal for an extended callbacks field

[Sadrul Habib Chowdhury]

* Andreas Monitzer had this to say on [26 Jul 2007, 03:44:56 +0200]:
[snip]
> 
> During the summer, I'm programming. Learning is what I'm doing the  
> rest of the year. FYI, I do have a Bachelor's degree in Software  
[snip]

... and ...

* Ethan Blanton had this to say on [26 Jul 2007, 16:24:27 -0400]:
[snip]
> It seems like we fight, over and over in this thread, two general
> sticking points:
> 
>   1) A problem exists, and a *single* particular solution is found for
>      it.  Someone says that that particular solution is suboptimal or
>      even unacceptable for some reason, and you draw the conclusion
>      "the Pidgin developers do not want to solve this problem".  The
>      correct conclusion is, "we need to think about good ways to solve
>      this problem, the first try wasn't sufficient".
> 
>   2) A design principle P, such as "UI and protocol concerns should be
>      separate" is held up, and applied to problem X.  When you later
>      encounter problem Y, you say "this problem will involve issues
>      surrounding principle P, it is unsolvable within
>      libpurple/Pidgin".  Again, the correct reaction is "we will have
>      to think about how principle P bears on this problem, and make
>      sure that we can solve it cleanly".
> 

I think the attitude displayed in the first email-snippet is largely
responsible for the points stated in the second one.

And for the record, as an SoC student last year and an SoC mentor this
year, I find that attitude rather naive (some might even call it
stupid).

Sadrul

"At night, I sleep. Breathing is what I am doing the rest of the day!"
  -- me