2011/3/5 Rick McGuire <object.r...@gmail.com>
> Generally, it would be good to open an RFE for the specific item you
> wish to implement. It would be fine to include the function of having
> a threadlocal as part of that RFE and close both once they are
> implemented.
>
> For something of this scope, I think you need to write the
> documentation (or at least a skeleton of the docs) for the feature so
> people can see what you're really adding.
>
> Well, an ooRexx thread class (Activity ?) is beyond my current need,
whereas .threadlocal is what I need. You have a broader vision which brings
more functionalities and anticipates future needs, which is obviously good.
If I understand correctly, you propose to address the RFE **2868655 through
a new RFE, more general ? My problem here, I'm not sure i'm the right person
to open this new RFE, because I don't have concrete needs for it, at least
for the moment... Nevertheless, I will think about that.
I have the same problem with the extension of predefined classes. I know
what I need, but it's more difficult for me to generalize the concept as you
did. I could open an RFE limited to my need, but I don't since it's
rejected. And I'm not comfortable to open an RFE which goes beyond my need.
But ok, same approach as above : I'm thinking about it, accumulating
references to papers and seeing if I can build a more general RFE. But
that's hard...
Regards
Jean-Louis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You
This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details
its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative
solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
