On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 03:46:41PM -0700, Karyn Ulriksen wrote:
> I know what beta testing is, so I hope you didn't think I was trying to yank
> your chain! I knew that if it got ugly I could easily take that server
> offline and easily back out the code.
Ack! I'm sorry for what I think is a miscommunication. I think the
cordial tone was lost in e-mail. :) I was being sincere, I definitely
appreciate your testing the code.
> As it was, it got even uglier since I last wrote in. Again this is FYI...
> for input on the beta and all... The load balancing service I'm using
> masked the more serious problem of the data failing with get passed
> somewhere in the bowels of Apache/mod_perl where it was before. I'll tinker
> with it in the wee hours to see if it is failing on the set or the retrieve.
> I reviewed the syntax and there doesn't appear to be any changes between new
> and old (did I miss anything?... it's a little late in the day and I had a
> long weekend :) and it's possible I did and I didn't review for any
> caveats... ).
I'm pretty sure you are doing exactly the right thing. It is
certainly possible that the new version doesn't work at all. I'd
love to figure out a way to make this version work, because it does
address some of the concerns that Sam pointed out. However, if there
is degraded performance (which may be an understatement) then I won't
release version 0.04 like this.
Again, thanks for the highly valuable feedback!
-DeWitt
