> It's simpler if B has a dependency on A, since it means A has to be
> started before B can be started, which would likely work out fine.

Right. :D I meant the opposite.

I will check systools and see how it would handle those cases closely.

> I don't like the idea of "extra_applications" though, the name just
> doesn't seem to express what the list is really there for - namely to
> provide metadata about the load/start behaviour of applications. Maybe it's
> simpler/clearer to break them out, e.g. "loaded_applications",
> "started_applications", where the latter allows one to specify the start
> type, defaulting to :permanent. Thoughts?

The last proposal completely dropped the ability to set an application as
permanent, temporary, etc. hence the name :extra_applications. If we are
going to have such ability, I would stick with :start_applications
previously proposed.


*José Valim*
Skype: jv.ptec
Founder and Director of R&D

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"elixir-lang-core" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to