On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 12:04 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > > > it is indeed a synchronous API :)
> > > Syncronous, but it fails the "you know if you've succeeded when the
> > > function returns" test.
> > 
> > most of the camel APIs don't fail that test
> > 
> This was in the context of something I was thinking of ("So it sounds as
> if Camel could ....").  The feature/change I was contemplating sounds as
> if it would be a bad idea because it violates the usual model for camel
> calls.

ah, gotcha. yes, I'd agree :)

>   Probably either a smaller change (keeping the
> blocking/syncronous/useful return values in place) or a bigger one
> (general asyncronicity) would be a better idea--at least in a perfect
> world of infinite coding time.:)  In fact, your idea with folder open
> preserves the expected features of the camel API.

yep :)


Jeff


_______________________________________________
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers

Reply via email to