In HC, and I would bet in Rev, messages are sent regardless of whether there is a handler to trap them. If none, the message passes right through the engine into the ether. I don't know if there would be a savings in overhead to discard such messages at the outset; I suppose it would not hurt. At compile time Rev would have to examine all scripts everywhere, checking for matches.
But are you suggesting that the engine limit itself in this way for the sake of streamlining? I like your idea of adding a superMessage, but I also like the idea that messages come and go, trapped, or not, at the whim of the scriptor. Craig Newman In a message dated 5/17/09 1:01:36 PM, [email protected] writes: > Does it look ahead for all handlers and only bother to send messages that > have handlers to recieve them? In my scheme, one would specifically > identify which properties to track (filtering for target objects: > ************** Recession-proof vacation ideas. Find free things to do in the U.S. (http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/national-tourism-week?ncid=emlcntustrav00000002) _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
