-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi,
I've been familiarizing myself with the Shindig SPI for a while now and keep wondering about the use of Future's for the results of most of the SPI interfaces. What strikes me most is that an SPI-implementation has to think about the possible asynchronous nature of its method calls (which, as it currently boils down, is never used in the current codebase). Aside that, it makes all the supporting code of the SPI very complex and hard to debug. Anybody care to elaborate about the rationale behind this? - -- Met vriendelijke groeten | Kind regards Jan Willem Janssen | Software Architect +31 631 765 814 /My world is:/ Luminis Technologies B.V. IJsselburcht 3 6825 BS Arnhem +31 88 586 46 30 http://www.luminis-technologies.com http://www.luminis.eu KvK (CoC) 09 16 28 93 BTW (VAT) NL8169.78.566.B.01 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQdSooAAoJEKF/mP2eHDc4BHUP/3azQPhqjdSQq01LjKG4K1vc Wi0gEoisR2/OUclkzNynnX7woP02J3S/Ct8XRe6kBp/rQOAEi2LPsmN3n0WJVlDI 6yIbEyrVeJQorvyEFAtXM4o3pz/pp03bLoo8URi1v7/79I6UoTckQpWk5vECFzVU Kq2wq5glpsiRCDdAE7LmI7RQDny1h5L0Lek56lInGNltT4fm3JLsPBm2KUPSd9ap CEcWO5wVIYxSzvVzEvHW1/vCv/hWb5ZCp8V0Zh96tRlQJuaO29OFkAGrEEjJrPsz fTwVoxgkN+JHVzbMhKgW9uPxuV30r1y1Sb9LIbgbdyOwJUCPjuMLtvGOVezrUQmU IcJ/sgHB7cujXwvBeZnPW71dnBhoBh1tHGUFHVBrBWJcwHH3MoOpDYGYcuGG8ffw nYP/xRGkHGYHQqEWF2Oo/XWDTh+pSwfftWUeNb8lSiuUbz0ljRiCoQ5HZWmyQQfw UehNv+YeLZPs87p6GwI4S4gODPhJ8kLasZSS78OrES9PFi86ZCfnDGyk14kHqEdP XGP0LxoUzvA9QLX4uJA2uJngmBpUKoOisKA0ds6KD0RAIgfG0iTOct6TlUJZDvgE KbnCmRkVI0YPyrHue2Ay3qZ7wqW5R4zHq7TOdsxTyc/bFMTYDzyMFanfOSGkEQPQ nrdnaMnYbWZMj/IJhKsY =121v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
