btw. if you like do this - Get 2 committers to say +1. I am not planning to vote on this. - Change and post new release schedule. This was a source of concern for me. Change it please to make it clearer.
I want to make the interface solid, as I said, but if you feel this has had sufficient discussion, that is fine. A bit tired of this. :-) Harmeet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harmeet Bedi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:50 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Interface for resettable, time-guarded, operations > Noel. are watchdog and watchdog target complete set of abstractions ? > > Peter are you the author of this proposal. > I want to make sure the interfaces are solid and if we move to this set, > there is no need to change after a few months to another abstraction. > > Can Peter/Noel/Andrei one of you post the entire set of interfaces as part > of proposal. > > > The association is decoupled. There actually is no need for a tight > > coupling between those interfaces at the highest level, and good reason to > > keep it loosely coupled. > > To me this means there is another association API. Can you post that API > please. How will you lookup and associate a watchdog with target ? > > thanks, > Harmeet > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
