[Pan-users] Re: A few 0.9x items

[Duncan]

Charles Kerr posted
<address@hidden>, excerpted
below,  on Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:45:05 -0500:

[Charles didn't attribute this, but it's Kevin Brammer =8^)]
>> I also agree with Chris Maaskant. I liked the ability to select one
>> server and load a certain set of groups, and select a different server
>> for a different group set.  The multiserver features are great too,
>> but I still like the old way for some uses.
> 
> My plan for 0.95 was to put in support for `primary' and `backup'
> news servers so that you can hit the free news servers first,
> then fall back to the nonfree ones that charge by the bandwidth.
> Will that do?

The idea's a good one, but with an arbitrary two levels, it lacks a bit of
flexibility.

It seems to me that once the code is there to prioritize servers, it
should  be just as easy to have multiple (numbered) levels.  I can't
really point to a non-contrived situation where I can demonstrate it would
work better, beyond what a two-level system would do, but I'm sure you're
aware that folks often use an app (or code) in ways the author never
foresaw, and I just don't see a point in limiting it to primary/backup,
when a third and possibly fourth, etc level could conceivably be better
for /someone/, and the prioritization code along with some way to set it
is already being added in the first place.

IOW, instead of primary/backup only, a boolean, make it a regular (long)
int and be done with it.  (Or, if you are planning to pack it in with some
other data, give it 2-4 bits of significance, not just one -- I can't
envision a case where 16 priority levels would be too few, and 4 would
break it out of the binary mode and be enough for anything I can even
contrive.)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html