> 2) 400 files in a directory is pretty awful to see. They
> aren't organised well enough. I can live with that, but
> it's something we could improve.

Having worked with developing some aspects of IBO, I have to say that
I think the source files are organised very well. Now that I am
familiar with IBO I can go almost directly to any part of the code
that I want.

Since most people will probably not get into the development of IBO,
perhaps what you are referring to is pulling the files of user
interest together somehow (the package projects, licence and
releasenotes.).

A lot of packages have a "Source" subdirectory. The packages,
releasenotes etc could be in the base directory and refer to the
Source subdirectory. Is the sort of thing you mean?

> 3) A well done installer takes into consideration the
> people who wants to customize the installation. I really
> think that a program has to ask the user where he wants
> to put the files.

All I want from an "installer" is the option for a pure extract of
files that I can install myself. Anything else I leave up to those
who care ;-)

> Another problem is that I can't choose if I want to step
> into the source code of the components when debugging.
> This makes debugging hard, because you have to navigate
> through all the internal methods of the components to
> reach your own code, after a Open or a Post or something.
> I think this should be an option.

This certainly sounds like a worthwhile option for those simply
interested in using IBO but not getting involved in its development.

> Any suggestions?

I think it remains to be seen what Jason has to say on this topic. I
suspect the most difficult aspect will be putting something together
that works smoothly with how Jason prepares his releases. The one
thing I dont want is to make it more difficult for Jason to maintain
the releases - I suspect he has quite enough to do already :-)


Geoff Worboys
Telesis Computing