[RFC] named pipe message-mode design

[James McKenzie]

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> 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.
>
>  
>   
Since I deal with that on a daily basis, I'll step in.  A great design
is one that does EVERYTHING right the first time.  What you are
proposing goes counter to this and is unacceptable.  Do it right the
first time and you don't have to revisit, revisit and revisit some more.

In other words:  AJ is right, you are just looking for the easy way
out.  Not a good idea and others end up cleaning up when the users start
whining.

James McKenzie