> I am trying to help get the interface solid. See emails and help in
> solidfying proposal you have sent out (minus abstractions)
And I've been answering your questions. :-) Even if it is 3:45 AM.
> haven't voted -1
> Said that if significant number of commiters vote on this, I'll be happy
> to go along.
I've noticed. :-)
> I you read any email I sent, and conversation over IM, you will notice I
do
> not object to change but the timing of this. This was based on release
> schedule that was posted.
That is not consistently clear to me from your e-mails, but I'll take your
word for it.
As for the schedule, Peter (who proposed the scheduler) based it upon his
expectation of finishing this long awaited set of changes done sooner; it
was late because he diverted to fix NNTP.
> I have just finished testing a scheduler impl with cleanup and javadocs
etc.
> Will sent it around if you want to test it out.
Please make sure to zip up the entire binary dist, so that I don't have to
go through hoops to install it.
> There were 2 issues Service Refactoring and watchdog. The combination does
> mean significant change in the handler interaction. This should be done as
a
> proposal and put for voting. That is the standard way.
I do agree that changes should be approved by committers, but I've looked
over the submission, and I disagree with your "significant change" issue.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
