On 22/06/2007, at 1:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I don't think this makes sense to add to 2.0.x as we have to 1) provide a way to load these strategies which is taken care of in 2.1, and 2) people will implement them in 2.0.x and then expect them to work in 2.1 which they won't because it will be graph-based in 2.1.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I don't think the intention of this patch is to allow other people to plug in their own, but simply allowing them to use alternatives we've provided. The pluggable part certainly needs to come later.
If that's the case, I don't understand why conflict resolution is incompatible with being graph based. You still need to make decisions at the graph nodes, and the same strategies probably apply.
I think everyone agrees that will happen.
I don't think we can agree on anything yet, because we haven't formed a proposal. In the few discussions that have happened so far it's clear we're not coming from a common understanding. You said you had something like 6 pages written over a month ago - I think seeing them even in draft form would help us at least be on the same page.
API exposure, and mechanism for loading the strategies are problems. I don't think it would be wise to promote this at this point in 2.0.x.
I'd actually like to see this committed to trunk. It would give people the option to see it in action, and it would mean the future solution must be at least as functional. I'm not really big on adding features to 2.0.x either, as I've said before.
Mark, would this suit you? Cheers, Brett --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
