> Go back to the veto and yoou will see the reason was
> "It is the same approach that has been done before and failed and can't
> cleanly produce some aspects like delayed activation, passivation,
> persistence, transaction demarcation, bifuricating interception etc."
Peter, you still need to explain things. Such as why you believe that the
proposed solution doesn't cleanly produce those things, and what you feel
would need to be done, either to that proposal, or with an alternative, that
does satisfy all of the competing requirements.
An interesting irony is that your signature-bot added the following on your
earlier commentary to Jason van Zyl:
| We shall not cease from exploration, and the |
| end of all our exploring will be to arrive |
| where we started and know the place for the |
| first time -- T.S. Eliot |
You should understand that he is saying that you may explore all sorts of
paths, and indeed wander full circle. But just because you end up where you
started doesn't mean that the journey was in vain. Having made it, you now
have a different appreciation.
> When asked for my opinion on possible paths to fix I suggested that
> interceptor pattern is the solution. I sent along a couple of links
> (as has Leo) and that should be enough. If there is something missing
> then feel free to ask questions after reading the links I have sent.
As I mention in another message, since there appear to be two different
proposals in the offering, it would be helpful to see a TERSE AND PITHY
comparison of them leading to a discussion of what the Community wants to
do; perhaps taking the best ideas from each.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
