[RFC] named pipe message-mode design
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
lkcl at lkcl.net
Thu Mar 5 03:37:56 CST 2009
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Ben Klein <shacklein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/3/5 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net>:
>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Alexandre Julliard <julliard at winehq.org> wrote:
>>> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at 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.
More information about the wine-devel