tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23992350.post8551927070500982591..comments2008-12-21T16:07:24.779ZRobbiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08233833428126146585noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23992350.post-15289617594225772932008-12-21T16:07:00.000Z2008-12-21T16:07:00.000Z@rags, I can see your thought process, and I'm tending to look at this more like how libraries are extracted. They tend to be swappable. <BR/><BR/>I think what I was trying to drive towards, but perhaps not very well is I think engineering teams should be decentralised, and only loosely joined by common components. These common components should be derived from the project teams over time but just because there is a common component which you may require, it doesn't mean that you have to use it. However, it would be beneficial if your choice could become a common component as well. <BR/><BR/>e.g, everyone uses Ant for build scripts, but a team wants to use Maven instead. They should be allowed to make their own choice, but should feel that they should contribute into the build script common project the work they do with a new tool to achieve the same affect.<BR/><BR/>What do you think?Robbiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08233833428126146585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23992350.post-16539683684748588612008-12-20T22:24:00.000Z2008-12-20T22:24:00.000ZHow often does this commonality actually get used in practice? And...I thought you were currently unsure whether frameworks aided or hindered development - wouldn't the similarities with frameworks end up with the same effects?ragstorookshttp://ragstorooks.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com