RE: Re: Standalone xPL Hub Summary, Mark II

["Tony Tofts" <tony@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> I'd avoid any substantial changes to the environment here -
> let's bear in mind that (apart from the odd "no-hub" issue
> some of us are seeing, this has been a nice solid environment
> for a good couple of years now.
>
> One thing -
>
> > With built-in hubs, the application was free to assume that a hub
> would be available.
> > With a stand-alone hub, that will change.
>
> I don't think so - to my mind, the application should act as
> if there is a hub present anyway. I think that an app should
> *always* assume that a hub is present and in essence, not
> give it any other thought.

I totally concur with this

> One thing also - the suggested timings have to be worded as
> "suggested values", not as a protocol breaking rule. There
> would be a lot of work involved in re-writing existing code,
> and I think that time would be better spent on new developments!

And with this

Thanks
Tony