Geoff Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<snip/>
> >
> >Maybe we should consider marking the block "stable"?
> >
> >
> >
> >+1 That would be good from our perspective. If it made it
> into 2.1.6
> >+as
> >stable we'd be more comfortable depending on it.
> >
> >
>
> :) Sounds like another chicken and egg. Murphy's law says
> that if we
> mark it a stable API and you test it this summer, you'll need the API
> changed...
Chuckle, well we do still have the issue of how to chase down entire
dependency trees.... At the moment we take a brute force approach; if
you touch any part of the tree the whole tree gets invalidated. Part of
the scheduled initiative will be to add caching for the data that we
don't currently cache. At that point, the brute force approach just
won't cut it since we'll have intersecting trees and touching just about
anything will result in cascades of invalidation...
