Yeah, I was actually thinking 1.x when I read and wrote 1.1 :-) Thanks for clarifying.
Ted Husted wrote:
>> (although for 1.1 we'd probably implement all this inside a new one >> that simply replaces the process() method with the appropriate chain >> lookup and execution.)
For clarity, we probably should be saying the 1.x processor, since we'd certainly be past 1.1.x before anything like this shipped. (Old habits die hard.)
-Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DISCLAIMER:
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and attachments.
DISCLAIMER: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and attachments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
