Hi, The functionality you suggested sounds good, so I could give it a shot. I can try to provide another patch sometime next week. In the meantime, you can merge this one if you see fit. - A-V On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 11:15 +0200, Colin Guthrie wrote: > 'Twas brillig, and Antti-Ville Jansson at 12/11/10 07:52 did gyre and > gimble: > > Earlier, if slave sinks were unlinked in non-automatic mode, their > > re-appearance was disregarded. Now they are added back to the list of outputs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Antti-Ville Jansson <antti-ville.jansson at digia.com> > > Reviewed-by: Tanu Kaskinen <tanu.kaskinen at digia.com> > > Cool, thanks. I'll review/merge over the weekend (not much reviewing > needed seeing as tanuk has already reviewed tho' - and it's quite short!) > > I would personally go one step further and allow for invalid slave names > to be supplied at startup the logic being: > > * If no slaves exist, just idle and wait for the necessary hooks before > loading the actual combine sink. > * If one of our "watched" slaves turns up, and we have not yet created > our combine sink, then create it. > * If all our slaves disappear, unload our sink but keep the module > loaded and go back to idling and waiting for sinks to appear again. > > I think the above changes would make the module much more useful. It may > take a little more engineering however because of the slight restructure. > > If anyone fancies taking a crack at that, I'd be more than happy to > offer advice :D > > Cheers > > Col >
