2009/6/16 Graham Davis wrote:
> While I'm listed as the maintainer of this module, no major work has
> been done in it for about year. I don't think many people are using
> this API yet so changing it to improve it probably won't affect many people.
>
Except me :-)
I've been (very slowly) workin
I would go with the first for the same reasons already listed. The API
was looking for feedback from others on how it would be used, so it's
not really nailed down.
While I'm listed as the maintainer of this module, no major work has
been done in it for about year. I don't think many people a
> The solution suggested in the thread was to make a factory
> that can bear multiple algorithms. I see two paths ahead:
> - change the whole ProcessFactory definition so that
>it returns a list of process names, and takes a name
>parameter in each call (api break)
> - create a new Composi
> The solution suggested in the thread was to make a factory
> that can bear multiple algorithms. I see two paths ahead:
> - change the whole ProcessFactory definition so that
> it returns a list of process names, and takes a name
> parameter in each call (api break)
This is fine; the api is n
