Hi, On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 1:37 PM, David Nuescheler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... i think that it is probably the easiest if toby and i come up with a > proposal > as an actual patch that suits our needs and experiences from a users > perspective and meets the performance requirements, and then take > this a basis for discussion...
Agreed. > ... generally, i would like to keep this proposal backwards compatible to > the current one, since there are only 2 or 3 that are broken and the > rest is perfectly fine and suits the needs. keeping things backwards > compatible also makes this a minor change and convenience improvement > for current users.... Ok, I think we all agree the current way is not too bad, so if you can come up with a proposal that improves it without going overboard that's probably fine. I'm not too worried about performance, once again this stuff can easily be cached, and if we need to recursively walk down under a path like /apps/foo to find all potential scripts, that's usually only a handful of files. -Bertrand
