On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:59:54 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> Is this over/under engineered? I spent roughly as long on the design as
> it took me to type :). Maybe the whole session id thing is redundant and
> could be done at the socket level. Or, getting more serious about the
> whole thing, mayb
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:49:14 +0100, Jed Brown wrote:
> It wouldn't bother me at all if I lost my last few seconds of
> interactive tagging due to something catastrophic like losing power. I
> think there is still (post #250) a case for supporting some asynchronous
> operations.
I was wondering w
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:59:54 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> Is this over/under engineered? I spent roughly as long on the design as
> it took me to type :). Maybe the whole session id thing is redundant and
> could be done at the socket level. Or, getting more serious about the
> whole thing, mayb
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:49:14 +0100, Jed Brown wrote:
> It wouldn't bother me at all if I lost my last few seconds of
> interactive tagging due to something catastrophic like losing power. I
> think there is still (post #250) a case for supporting some asynchronous
> operations.
I was wondering w
