"Dimitry Sibiryakov" <aafemt@...> wrote:

>
> 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.

We're on the same page then, with the only major conflict - I want to avoid
any intelligence (more than a simple poll) inside the Y-valve and put
everything into the services manager, while you want to avoid an extra call
route but complicate the Y-valve.

> Any reason why engine must call Y-valve? Existing code?

All existing utilities.

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

They do it now.


Dmitry