RE: xPLLib v3.0 Public Beta

["Ian Lowe" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think the built in hub is a backwards step, tbh - It has been the
position
right from the word go that a hub was required as step 1 of any xPL
installation, and I don't really see a compelling reason to change this
now.

Like Mal, I'd rather see an absolutely Bulletproof tested and solid hub
running as a windows service, rather than relying on various
implementations within apps.

As an aside, can the new C++ lib be used to build an xPL hub service
that odesn't use .Net? I can see that having appeal.

Tom is wrong about "not being on the list long enough to have voting
rights" - a good idea is a good idea, whoever says it - but what those
of us who have been around the list for a while are more familiar with
is troubleshooting problems in newbie installs.

I'd agree that binding to a specific interface is a good thing to have
as an option, but a bad thing to have as a default. It would make the
job of figuring out an install problem all the harder, and those who
want it more robust can go in an tinker.

Ian.