Component clarification

Alexandros Frantzis alexandros.frantzis at
Mon Nov 18 11:32:41 UTC 2013

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:27:31AM +0000, Alan Griffiths wrote:
> This came up again with my resent proposal to move Session related state
> to the "surfaces" component.
> On 25/10/13 15:22, Kevin Gunn wrote:
> > I'm ok with "state & implementation code" changing from "surface" to
> > "core". I'm sure others will weigh in.
> I'm not convinced that it says "semantic data model" but neither does
> "surfaces". But what do folks think about "core"?
> Strongly For/Weakly For/Weakly Against/Strongly Against?

I think the term "core" is at the same time too vague and too strong.
It's too vague because it doesn't describe what the "core" component of
mir contains. It's too strong because "core" forces us to think in terms
of a special core component and other non-core components, which I don't
think is appropriate for our architecture.

My vote is on the stronger verge of "Weakly Against"; I am sure we could
get used to it, but I think we can do better. Some alternatives
mentioned on IRC:



More information about the Mir-devel mailing list