> Coming back on the vote: > the issue here is not really about renaming these classes, but > about introducing this FlowState abstraction layer. Your remark > rightfully makes me see I was starting to overlook the subtle nuance. > > all in all, I have the feeling this is not really part of the > public interface we want to nail down here and now ? > (meaning that I believe the introduction of this layer could be > done whithout much effect on applications that just use an > certain flow implementation, of course the flowprocessor impl's > themselves would have some refactoring ahead)
I don't understand the current flow implementation from Ovidiu and Chris or Sylvain's and your proposal in all depth but whatever the future brings should only change implementations - the user shouldn't even notice that something has changed. > the same remark probably goes for the FlowEngine/Processor and > might explain our lesser natural connection to these issues on > the table? Sorry, I don't understand what you mean with this last paragraph. Reinhard
