FWIW -- we talked about this a bunch in the Louisville and have some
ideas. More details coming in meeting wrapup notes...
On Jul 11, 2008, at 11:14 AM, Ralph H Castain wrote:
Ummm...I actually was talking about the "PLM", not the "PML".
But I believe what you suggest concurs with what I
Ummm...I actually was talking about the "PLM", not the "PML".
But I believe what you suggest concurs with what I said. In the PLM, you
could still provide multiple components you want considered, though it has
less meaning there. My suggestion really is only that we eliminate the
params to adjust
We don't want the user to have to select by hand the best PML. The
logic inside the current selection process selects the best pml for
the underlying network. However changing the priority is pretty
meaningless from the user's point of view. So while retaining the
selection process
Okay, another fun one. Some of the PLM modules use MCA params to adjust
their relative selection priority. This can lead to very unexpected behavior
as which module gets selected will depend on the priorities of the other
selectable modules - which changes from release to release as people
