On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> In which case, one is left wondering whether it's worth offering the
> mechanism, when it's only useful on non-loaded systems.
(as if this came up mainly from a packaging pov) - what if the
"plugins" (lets call em so even if they're actually compiled in) are
structured so in the source that building different binary versions
from the same tree would be easy to automate ?
like, if you need one version with logging cabaility X, another with
message eating cap Y, you would "make FEATURE1 FEATURE2" which would
result in two exim build-trees (or, partially, as they could share
much), and you can do packaging in one just as in the other ?
ok, by now that i've finished the mail i see that it may just not
well be a good idea, however i let it loose; might light a spark in
someone.
actually i don't know enough of this plugin-arch to be able to think
on - i'm missing stuff like where (which parts, which stages) would a
hook be, whether there would be a "chain-da-h00kz" ability, and the
like - Philip, are these already thought about/settled, or is it still
liquid ? could you please post some more details ?
