> > But if there would be a watcher
> > grouping feature (as you indicated), watching groups of watchers could provide a
>new dimension of
> > flexibility. Not that I looked for that, but now that you foretold it it seems to
>be interesting.
>
> Hm... maybe inactivity watchers should work like this.
I think this could be a way. It seems to me that currently - as I understand them -
inactivity watchers are
very similar to idle watchers except of the priority choice. So, if someone constructs
an inactivity watcher
of level 6, it is in fact an idle watcher, isn't it? So I think the current inactivity
meaning could be merged
into idle watchers, making the level attribute optional, and inactivity could become
the watcher name for this
new type which takes care of other watchers.
> > On the other hand, as I expressed before, introducing a group feature could (from
>my point of view) imply
> > new difficulties. Could a watcher belong to more than exactly one group, for
>example?
>
> I don't see any insurmountable problems. I'll put it on the TODO list.
Great! So I'm looking forward to this new feature ;-)
Jochen
