22 Mar
2010
22 Mar
'10
9:15 a.m.
Hi,
I see that there are changes that go back and forth in the Cook API.
For example, FAMIXMethod>>sureIncomingInvocations just returned to the
original implementation.
What is happening in this area? :)
Were the original changes of Cyrille just an experiment? If yes, we
should leave them out for now. If no, why is the situation reverted
only for the case of sureIncomingInvocations?
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow."
22 Mar
22 Mar
11:30 a.m.
On 22 mars 2010, at 09:15, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
I see that there are changes that go back and forth in the Cook API. For example,
FAMIXMethod>>sureIncomingInvocations just returned to the original implementation.
What is happening in this area? :)
We are trying to rationalize/simplify/optimize the implementation of Cook using some kind
of specs. This is mostly brainstorming for now.
Were the original changes of Cyrille just an
experiment? If yes, we should leave them out for now. If no, why is the situation reverted
only for the case of sureIncomingInvocations?
I agree that we should leave them out for 4.0. I think that Jannik noticed that DSM tests
failed on sureIncomingInvocations and that's why it was reverted. One related issue is
that we still dont have development branches so we cant test the new implementation
independently (still a few issues to work out in the wizard).
--
Simon
12:25 p.m.
Ok, then I would suggest to revert to the original changes and only
leave the helper traversals.
Doru
On 22 Mar 2010, at 11:30, Simon Denier wrote:
On 22 mars 2010, at 09:15, Tudor Girba wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"There are no old things, there are only old ways of looking at them."
Hi,
I see that there are changes that go back and forth in the Cook
API. For example, FAMIXMethod>>sureIncomingInvocations just
returned to the original implementation.
What is happening in this area? :)
We are trying to rationalize/simplify/optimize the implementation of
Cook using some kind of specs. This is mostly brainstorming for now.
Were the original changes of Cyrille just an
experiment? If yes, we
should leave them out for now. If no, why is the situation reverted
only for the case of sureIncomingInvocations?
I agree that we should leave them out for 4.0. I think that Jannik
noticed that DSM tests failed on sureIncomingInvocations and that's
why it was reverted. One related issue is that we still dont have
development branches so we cant test the new implementation
independently (still a few issues to work out in the wizard).
--
Simon
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
5388
days inactive
5388
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Simon Denier -
Tudor Girba