Re: LDM 6.0.2.

Stonie,

>Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:34:05 +0000
>From: "Stonie R. Cooper" <address@hidden>
>To: Steve Chiswell <address@hidden>
>Subject: LDM 6.0.2.

The above message contained the following:

> Steve, et al,
> 
> We have migrated our plugin to 6.0.2; I have 6.0.2 running end to end and 
> have 
> noticed the following:
> 
>  - "nicer" logging;
>  - less CPU impact;
>  - less latency.

That's the idea.

> >From a developer standpoint, it was much easier to migrate our plugin code 
> into the src tree now that you use templates for virtually everything for 
> make.

Excuse me.  What are "templates ... for make"?  Are you referring to the
use of "include"s in the makefiles and the two, top-level makefiles
"macros.make" and "rules.make"?

> Of course, this could be a trait of beta . . . but I like it.  Kudos 
> to the team.

Thanks.  The use of the "include" directive is a bit risky in that there
could be a native make(1) utility that doesn't support it -- but so far
so good.

> As soon as I hear from you on how would like us to assign feedtypes (or just 
> let us know to do what we are currently doing - i.e. following the feedtype 
> doc on the LDM webpage), we'll get our academic customers on 6.0.2.

Ah feedtypes!  We're thinking about using the highest-order bit to
designate a flat feedtype space.  Bit manipulation wouldn't be allowed
but it would give us another 2^31 feedtypes.  Perhaps some of that range
could be reserved for use by the user.

Unfortunately, this will mean fairly substantial modifications to the
code, which will take a while.

Regards,
Steve Emmerson