On 9/9/2011 7:17 AM, frankster wrote:
> On 09/09/11 15:03, Joe Emenaker wrote:
>> On 9/9/2011 1:56 AM, William Zwicky wrote:
>>> I think my example above matches that last case. Once the message
>>> for widget A has started sending, other messages can be queued, but
>>> they can't be sent until w
On 09/09/11 15:03, Joe Emenaker wrote:
> On 9/9/2011 1:56 AM, William Zwicky wrote:
>> We could let each synthdriver decide their own queue policy (ie, only
>>> hold one message per widget, or hold all of them). A more-complicated
>>> solution would be for widgets to indicate which messages belong
Its funny you should say this because I was talking to my friend last
week, and he was saying that maven now is what ant was 10 years ago.
i.e. 10 years ago ant was the standard build system, but these days
maven is.
In the longer run it could be interesting to look into the benefits that
mave
On 9/9/2011 1:56 AM, William Zwicky wrote:
> We could let each synthdriver decide their own queue policy (ie, only
>> hold one message per widget, or hold all of them). A more-complicated
>> solution would be for widgets to indicate which messages belong as a
>> set... but I don't see a need for th
I don't read all the mails, but have you think of using Maven to build
modules (libraries) instead of having one big build project ?
Maybe you could have one project for the core, one for the synthdrivers etc.
Just a suggestion as maven is used all the time in java projects. It
helps to separate
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Joe Emenaker wrote:
> On 9/8/2011 8:13 AM, frankster wrote:
> > What about if the midi layer will never queue more than 1 message from
> > a particular widget (so the midi layer would have to track the source
> > of each message) and if multiple messages appeared f
