| ??? 06/06/07 14:10 Read: times |
#140314 - Your approach is much more general... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
And much less 'hacky' than mine.
I know for a fact that I have only a few completely characterized messages to respond to, so I can safely assign each of them a unique identifier. I then store that identifier in my cache thing, which is necessary because a) I don't care that much about the sequence the messages were received in, only their content and b) I need to be able to search through the cache thing for arbitrary identifiers. And what does one call that, anyway? -Bob |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Software design problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Something like this, maybe? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Well, yes, actually... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Duhr and a question | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Which ones did you look at ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Duhr and an answer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Is it not possible to | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Horses for courses | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| have fun | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| A Queue? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I used what I called a \'cache\' | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Gah, code repost | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| you need to read it all, THEN process | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Your approach is much more general... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Prioritizing? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Some suggestions Bob | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thank you, sir! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Division / modulus not always slow | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Are we making this too difficult? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I don't think so, it seems to work pretty well... | 01/01/70 00:00 |