> > Btw, > > this topic is mine ;-) and the proposal is for a problem at > an higher level. > > Huh? "mine"? Don't go there, it isn't funny and won't win you > any friends.
Hey Danny, please note the emoticons ;-) Btw I don't think that friendship is an evaluation measure for proposals ;-) > I am trying to help you to address your higher level problem > by proposing an architecture within which you can modify > James to resolve your use-cases. Sorry, I think this "versus" discussion is pointless. The MAIN difference I see is that I state my proposal goal and target is different from your while you are trying to convince me that we should choose the better between the two proposal. I like your proposal and I hope you'll implement it because once committed implementing my layer on top of your protocol handling layer will be easier. I will resubmit my proposal again later. As I said in my proposal footnotes I don't have time to work on fast-fail right now: I'm working on DSN and RemoteDelivery optimisations. I tried to discuss with dev mailing list members about my DSN changes with no feedback, so I'm implementing the thing I need and I will submit directly the patch. You will decide wether to accept the patch or not. > > Again, I don't see problems with the 2 proposal, they are not > > alternative > > solutions: mine fast-fail extension behaviour will be built > over your "api". > > I agree. I am not against your ideas, I'm just trying to put > them in context. I'm sorry if I repeat myself but I think our ideas are in different context: there no needs to mix them. I think that my is a "Fast-fail proposal" and your is a "Extensible protocol handler proposal" but I don't want to choose the name for you so please choose 2 names for the 2 layers and I will use them. Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
