On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:18:55 -0000, Loïc Minier <email address hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011, James Westby wrote:
> > Right, that's exactly the more complex solution we were previously
> > discussing :-)
>
> ah right, sorry!
>
> To reword my opinion, the proposal from comment #8 seems to be a kludge
> 90% as complex as the clean solution we all wish we had. ;-)
The difference is where the complexity is. My proposed solution is
entirely doable within code that we control, whereas the other requires
co-ordination in several places, which is why I think that it will be
easier to accomplish.
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:18:55 -0000, Loïc Minier <email address hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011, James Westby wrote:
> > Right, that's exactly the more complex solution we were previously
> > discussing :-)
>
> ah right, sorry!
>
> To reword my opinion, the proposal from comment #8 seems to be a kludge
> 90% as complex as the clean solution we all wish we had. ;-)
The difference is where the complexity is. My proposed solution is
entirely doable within code that we control, whereas the other requires
co-ordination in several places, which is why I think that it will be
easier to accomplish.
Thanks,
James