On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 19:39, Kip Hampton wrote: > Jason Johnston wrote: > > > > Desperately trying to scratch the itch here... ;-) > > :-) > > > > > Below is a diff against latest CVS that, at least in my simple testcase, > > fixes the problem with the ordering of AxAddDynamicProcessor in the > > pipeline. But like I said before, I'm not a C guy (mostly > > hunt-peck-copy-paste on my part), and I may have overlooked something, > > so could someone please review this diff and make sure it's acceptable. > > Looks good, and, best of all, it works! Thanks, Jason :-) > > Before I check it in, though, I want to make sure we're not killing > folks that were depending on the previous "DynamicProcessors are always > appended" behavior. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that we revert back to > that, but I can imagine cases where people might have used that as a > quick and dirty way to always set the last style in the processing > chain. Anyone? Brian, will the change still allow you to do what you > need? If no one screams, I'll check Jason's patch in on Monday. > > -kip >
Since we're just using one item in the pipeline, we should be good to go. Brian > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
