On 12/13/2012 05:18 PM, Lieven Govaerts wrote: > IMHO, the option to make ra_serf respect a more stricter > interpretation of the editor api is something we need to give to a > developer, not to a user via config.
I get the gist of what you're saying, but don't agree with the specifics starting points and directions. It's not that we're asking ra_serf to use a "stricter interpretation of the editor api" -- it's that we're asking it to honor that API *at all*. All of these (and several other) problems with ra_serf stem for the simple fact that it was not written to obey the spec. We've dealt with it thus far by forcing our editor implementation to be able to gracefully handle ra_serf's shortcomings in this respect. So if there's an developer-accessible option to be had here, the default should be for the RA layer to be well-behaved, with the option to break the editor drive rules in some well-defined way. The choices should be two different known behaviors, not merely "Order" and "Chaos". -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
