On 11 May 2006 at 10:20, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:

>The difference is that your proposal requires changes in other
>services that are not related to the issue being solved.

Not necessary. My (and Roman) proposal is an ultimate solution. You
can implement only half of it if you wish to save time: keep engine
services in services provider and implement in Y-valve only issue-
related services.

>Because utilities call the engine through the Y-valve. But utilities
>are themselves contained inside the engine. So you get a chain:
>client->Y-valve->engine->Y-valve->engine.

Any reason why engine must call Y-valve? Existing code?
Or you mean "services provider" instead of "engine"? Then yes - in
your implementation it is unavoidable.

>Nope. I mean that if utilities are placed inside the engine, then they
>should *not* operate through the Y-valve.

And I don't see any reason why utilities may need to call Y-valve.

--
SY, Dimitry Sibiryakov.