Reinhard Pötz wrote:
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.
I share your hope
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.
yeah, I must say it was very poetic :-)
I noticed much of us have expressed the indifference feeling on this engine/processor issue,
we'ld have to give it a name here and now, but I guess all of us kind of 'feel' that changing this in the event we have built up enough evidence for either case will not be of that high influence...
Reinhard
-marc= -- Marc Portier http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0116284/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
