Although I will mention a third area of frustration that I don't think you're addressing in this pass: I feel like it's simultaneously too coupled into the payload classes and yet needlessly shoehorns things into a one-size fits all interaction model.
I'd rather something that was both more generic (e.g. something you could at least in principle just drop in to another project and use) and less constraining (so you could forward arbitrary methods, etc.). The reason is, it would be easier to ignore such a beast in your reasoning about the system. But that may just be me. -- Markus P.S. To make what I'm thinking about work, you might need to actually have multiple composable utilities (a caching system, an PRC alike, a repository system, etc.) 2009/12/21 Markus Roberts <[email protected]>: >> Anyone have any complaints if I rename the 'indirector' class to >> 'router'? > > I've been going back and forth about this, and finally figured I ought to > reply. > > Yes and no. > > I think my main problem with the indirector isn't the name, it's the concept. > And just as I start to type this, lo, a new message from Luke addressing two > of the areas that I was about to whine about. > > So I'll go with "no objection." > > -- Markus > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Irony is the hygiene of the mind.—Elizabeth > Bibesco > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- ----------------------------------------------------------- The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. ~George Bernard Shaw ------------------------------------------------------------ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
