John McNeil wrote: > > I'm going to have to be blunt here. You have suggested a significant > change, left it to someone else to invest the not-insignificant effort > to make, test, and refine a patch for this change, and then at a > moment's notice, unilaterally decided to scrap it on the basis that it > is a significant change. I don't think there's anyone who wouldn't be > even the slightest bit discouraged over this.
The significant change is the wrong change to make because it adds more complexity. I merely suggested it might be better to try another approach, but it didn't work out as well as I had hoped. You were willing to try the idea out (which I thank you for), but I never said I wouldn't accept your first patch. I was just hoping another approach could clean up the code and solve the bug in a nicer way. I'm sorry you spent significant effort on something you feel has been a waste. It hasn't been a waste at all. It's layed the groundwork for the scrobbler code to be transitioned to some event/edge-triggered framework in the future. It's also highlighted some issues with that transition and what kind of support the framework should provide. Plus we've discovered that scrobbling doesn't work well when enabled mid-song. All important things that can only improve the code. > > Anyway, you now have a few working patches on this issue to do with as > you please. Thanks. I've applied the first patch and queued it for the next maintenance release. _______________________________________________ Sonata-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/sonata-users
