On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Sergiu Ivanov <unlimitedscol...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 4:13 PM, <olafbuddenha...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Wouldn't it be simpler and clearer to process only the first suffix, and >> pass back any remaining ones as the retry_name, so that they >> automatically get handled correctly when the client does the retry?... >> (It seems to me that if you had done it that way, it would have been >> clearer from the beginning how stacking of dynamic translators is to be >> handled.) > > Well, setting translators in a simple loop is a bit faster, since, for > example, you don't have to consider the possibility of an escaped > ``,,'' every time (and this is not the only reason). OTOH, I'd rather > consider myself an adept of the following syntax: ``file,,x,y'', which > is also simpler to implement in a loop. > > Unfourtunately, I cannot really feel the advantage of using retries in > the case of creating dynamic translator stacks. > I'm rather inclined not to follow the concept of retries, because a new retry *requires* a new lookup, which is meaningless in case we are building a dynamic translator stack. BTW, could you please expound on the question why would we need extra > shadow nodes in a dynamic translator stack? I fail to see how this > would make our life simpler :-) > I guess I can understand the reason now: are these shadow nodes (probably I shouldn't call them "extra") a way to control the way how the filter traverses the translator stack?.. Regards, scolobb
