On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:57:00 -0500
"Anurag S. Maskey" <Anurag.Maskey at Sun.COM> wrote:
>
>
> Michael Hunter wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:52:36 -0500
> > "Anurag S. Maskey" <Anurag.Maskey at Sun.COM> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> The flag gives consumers of libnwam the control over how they want the
> >> objects to be walked.
> >>
> >
> > The only parts of the code that depend on ordering want it sorted.
> >
> >
> >> This RFE is adding to the functionality that
> >> exists, not replacing it.
> >>
> >
> > Right now there is no guaranteed order functionality.
> >
> >
> >> If the consensus is that the walk be sorted
> >> without actually changing the ordering in the files, then the flag is
> >> not necessary.
> >>
> >
> > This makes the most sense to me.
> >
> You mean you prefer that the walk always be sorted without having to
> specify the flag or changing the order of objects in the files (which is
> contrary to Alan's preference in the bug comments)?
I assume you mean this comment.
alan>For me, the answer depends on whether we actually store things
alphabetically
alan>or not. If we fix libnwam so we do, I don't think a flag is needed. If we
alan>don't, I think the flag is useful as a non-alphabetical walk would be
quicker.
The first conditional (second sentence) doesn't apply to this code review.
The third sentence makes the performance argument (which I thought
ya'all would bring up from the beginning). Given the length of this
list and the use of the API I don't think performance is a strong
enough reason to increase the complexity by an order of magnitude.
I havn't read a response from you to Renee about the ordering but I
agree that straight alpha including the type namne isn't exactly what
we want.
Michael
>
> Anurag
>
