On Fri, 2014-04-04 at 15:50 +0200, David Henningsson wrote: > On 04/04/2014 11:31 AM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > I'm heading towards "a generic solution to our current routing issues", > > but that solution will depend on Murphy, which will provide the > > configurability and the default routing rules. In my opinion, > > implementing another solution with good configurability and > > better-than-current default routing without Murphy should be implemented > > by someone else, if a non-Murphy-based solution is desired. > > (Just summing up what we discussed on IRC) > > So the result from all this work is that normal desktop users will get > nothing, except an API and quite some infrastructure to maintain. > > > If I understood correctly, you wish that I'd implement a full generic > > non-Murphy-based solution before merging the node infrastructure, but > > it's unclear to me whether that wish is a minimum requirement or not, > > and if it's not, what's the minimum requirement? > > I'm not sure what to answer to this question right now. I'd like to hear > what others have to say as well. Others were silent, so in the absence of permission from you to do anything else I think I'll have to work with the assumption that I will need to provide some kind of configurable non-Murphy-based routing module before the routing infrastructure can be accepted to master. -- Tanu
