On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Ben Klein <shackl...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/3/5 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <l...@lkcl.net>: >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Alexandre Julliard <julli...@winehq.org> >> wrote: >>> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <l...@lkcl.net> writes: >>> >>>> i would imagine that inefficient is the _last_ thing on the list of >>>> priorities. "technically correctly fulfilling the semantics" i would >>>> imagine would be the highest priority. >>>> >>>> "efficient" and "nice" can always be done later, yes? >>> >>> No, in many cases efficiency needs to be taken into account in the >>> design phase. You can't just add it later. >> >> sure you can. by redesigning. > > So you're saying that your original design is wasted effort?
no, i'm saying that it opens up the doors to the next level for wine - networked msrpc interoperability. > If it CAN > be redesigned to be efficient, nice, sensible and correct, it's worth > doing that from the start, especially in a big project such as Wine. yes it would be nice, wouldn't it. however, if there's a nicer design that would involve _more_ effort on my part rather than less, then offers of money should accompany the requests to implement the better design, to compensate me for the additional time spent. if however the nicer design turns out to involve _less_ effort on my part, i'm very very happy. l.
