On Jan 4, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > > Is keeping the generic worker reusable important? >
If possible, then yeah. But if adds a lot of complexity to the code, or reduces the efficiency of the named workers, then I'd punt it for now...
On Jan 4, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > > Is keeping the generic worker reusable important? >
If possible, then yeah. But if adds a lot of complexity to the code, or reduces the efficiency of the named workers, then I'd punt it for now...