On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 13:59 +0200, David Henningsson wrote: > > On 2014-04-22 11:06, Colin Guthrie wrote: > > Hiya, > > > > 'Twas brillig, and David Henningsson at 22/04/14 09:41 did gyre and gimble: > >> On 2014-04-17 12:41, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >> Well, I'd much prefer to hear more opinions about it. It's difficult for > >> me to know as well. > > > > Sorry, I've been somewhat slow to comment on this. > > Better late than never :-) > > > Is there a simple summary of the hooks etc. added by the Murphy patches > > that would be available to said alternative routing system? > > I'd like to add the question - compared to the current git master, would > the routing patch set make it any easier to implement Colin's priority > lists? Or would it be about the same (or even make things more complicated)? It would be about the same. -- Tanu
