[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Many questions about translators
From: |
olafBuddenhagen |
Subject: |
Re: Many questions about translators |
Date: |
Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:57:26 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) |
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 03:35:49PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> Again, it seems like a natural split to me. One translator per
> filesystem: one to merge the different packages into a single
> filesystem, and the other to interact with it.
I really don't see any point in introducing an arbitrary process boundry
here. It's not like you are actually splitting off any meaningful
functionality -- the extra node would just be a proxy. The extra
handling to set up that node would only add hassle to the user -- on top
of a lot of additional hassle for the implementation.
Better just handle it in the main process directly.
-antrik-
- Re: Many questions about translators, (continued)
- Re: Many questions about translators, Samuel Thibault, 2010/04/16
- Re: Many questions about translators, olafBuddenhagen, 2010/04/18
- Re: Many questions about translators, Carl Fredrik Hammar, 2010/04/19
- Re: Many questions about translators, olafBuddenhagen, 2010/04/20
- Re: Many questions about translators, Carl Fredrik Hammar, 2010/04/21
- Re: Many questions about translators, olafBuddenhagen, 2010/04/25
Re: Many questions about translators, Patrik Olsson, 2010/04/17
Re: Many questions about translators, olafBuddenhagen, 2010/04/18