On Jul 1, 2011, at 8:52 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > On 7/1/11 5:47 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> On Jul 1, 2011, at 8:04 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: >>> But all in all, in this case, the chain of filters will *be* a state >>> machine. >> And here is my point. They all are really state machines. Having network >> protocols "randomly" choosing chain paths is an anti-pattern. State >> machines should be known and fixed at the time of protocol initiation. > > Don't get me wrong... I'm not sure anyone here had in mind an implementation > which picks the next filter randomly... Although, that could be funny :)
To everyone but the person who has to debug what's going on. ;) With that said, why would we want our API make that possible? Would we not be doing our user base a service by switching the Mina API to a bona fide state machine with fixed state chains? Regards, Alan
