Hi Mathias,
On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 19:47 +0200, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> I don't remember what the proposed use cases for this
> architecture were.
According to Joerg - StarPortal :-) it's a valid concern, but IMHO
there are perhaps better ways to share data across processes, and well -
I think we can gain in maintainability & performance by re-factoring
here - and on Linux at least, configmgr is no. #2 on the per-library
performance breakdown after linking.
> Well, it depends. If Michael does a lot of changes afterwards
> you will have a hard time bringing the removed code back in.
> It sounds like there won't be a stone left standing after
> Michael will be done with the configmgr. :-)
Heh ;-) I only removed 1k lines in the 1st pass, there are still a few
left luckily. OTOH - I don't know of anyone familiar with the configmgr
code that thinks we need more complexity there. I think both Stephan &
Joerg agree.
But - code review / testing much appreciated etc.
Thanks,
Michael.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
