Re: 2.7 thoughts: common well-architected object model

viro
2003-10-12T17:50:04Z

On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 09:51:19AM -0700, retu wrote:
>
> nobody says that it belongs into the kernel rather
> designed by core=kernel folks core-up, that is e.g.
> not being a derivative of a set of all-encompassing
> classes developed for an application.
>
> I think the issue is serious and brushing it aside as
> being non-kernel at first will come back biting.
> What's going on could be described as being cornered.

With all due respect, whether you are cornered or not is none of our
problems. Neither is whatever passes for your thought process. So far
you have failed to produce anything except handwaving and some remarkably
ugly function prototypes. Not interesting...