On 25 Oct 2010, at 12:18 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
There are four factors here; 1) location matching, 2) merge caching,
3) premerging,
and 4) path lookups. You've conflated these in a way that really
concerns me.
No Bill, you've just conflated them. The rest of us are simply
discussing possibilities at this point, and I would appreciate it if
we could bring the discussion to a conclusion in a civil fashion.
Consider this a pre -1 until enough eyes have
asserted that they have reviewed such a sandbox and declared it an
improvement.
Wow, the very first contribution to the discussion is a veto, and
you've vetoed code that doesn't even exist yet. Crickey, the *ideas*
behind what code might be attempted haven't been fleshed out yet and
you're already waving a veto around. Somehow what started as possible
ways for indexing a really inefficient lookup in an efficient way has
suddenly ballooned into a "massive reorganisation".
You've been asked before many times and you are now being asked yet
again, please please please stop playing the veto card. It is
destructive, demoralising, patronising, and chases potential
contributors away from this project.
I have no problem with a sandbox *if* the discussion turns towards a
major reorganisation. I don't have a problem with holding off until
httpd v3.0 *if* it turns out the discussion leads towards a major
change in semantics.
But lets have the discussion first please!
Biting off all four at once will probably be a good way to attract
insufficient
review of the changes.
100% correct, which is why I had no intention of doing it. We are
short enough of reviewers as it is.
Regards,
Graham
--
