http://talksahana.com/2008/06/04/innovation-in-disaster-technology-at-where-20/ the unofficial official sahana blog Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:12:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 http://talksahana.com/2008/06/04/innovation-in-disaster-technology-at-where-20/#comment-25 Mifan Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:50:27 +0000 http://talksahana.com/?p=20#comment-25 Definitely. With the amount of R&D going on in Sahana, there is bound to be a lot of newer features, which may or may not be practically useful. However, my concern is on how we handle this - if a newer feature is, in Sahana-speak, an entirely independent module in the development trunk, then it is a matter of eliminating that module when deploying the system somewhere.. If however a new feature is part of an existing module, then this is not quite easy. I'd like a mechanism where even within a module, features/functions can be plugged-in/switched on-off... Definitely. With the amount of R&D going on in Sahana, there is bound to be a lot of newer features, which may or may not be practically useful. However, my concern is on how we handle this - if a newer feature is, in Sahana-speak, an entirely independent module in the development trunk, then it is a matter of eliminating that module when deploying the system somewhere.. If however a new feature is part of an existing module, then this is not quite easy. I’d like a mechanism where even within a module, features/functions can be plugged-in/switched on-off…

]]> http://talksahana.com/2008/06/04/innovation-in-disaster-technology-at-where-20/#comment-24 Paul C Thu, 05 Jun 2008 21:41:16 +0000 http://talksahana.com/?p=20#comment-24 I think it's inevitable that Sahana (as an overall platform) will become bloated... the question is, whether it's possible to ensure that any given deployment is an appropriate size and shape. In the end, it's the ease of use in a disaster that will make it - in the end, that should be the only criteria for developing features, right? I think it’s inevitable that Sahana (as an overall platform) will become bloated… the question is, whether it’s possible to ensure that any given deployment is an appropriate size and shape. In the end, it’s the ease of use in a disaster that will make it - in the end, that should be the only criteria for developing features, right?

]]>