[IRCServices] Does anyone use nested nick links?

[Andrew Kempe]

I agree, take the links down to a single level - it'll remove a hell of a
lot of complexity :))

Andrew

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Church" <achurch at achurch.org>
To: <ircservices at ircservices.za.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 3:04 AM
Subject: [IRCServices] Does anyone use nested nick links?


>      As the subject says, I'd like to know if anyone finds the nested
> link system in Services useful, or if it's unnecessary.  I originally
> modeled the system after symbolic links on Unix (and other) filesystems,
> but as this makes for added complexity and has in fact led to a number
> of bugs in the past as well as administrative difficulties.  So if
> there's no need for having multiple levels of nicks, I'm planning to
> just remove that capability in version 5 and limit links to a single
> level.
>
>      Note that the only case in which this makes a visible difference is
> the following:
>     * Register NickA
>     * Register NickB
>     * Link NickB to NickA
>     * Register NickC
>     * Link NickC to NickB
>     * Unlink NickB from NickA
>     * Change a setting on NickB
> In the nested (current) system, NickC would use the new setting for
> NickB set in the last step, while in a flat system, NickC would retain
> the original settings associated with nick A.  I can see potential cases
> where this functionality can be useful, but if no one is actually using
> links that way, then there's no real need to retain the functionality.
>
>      So, opinions, please: do you need nested links?
>
>   --Andrew Church
>     achurch at achurch.org
>     http://achurch.org/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, mail ircservices-request at ircservices.za.net
> with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject of the mail.
> http://www.ircservices.za.net/mailman/listinfo/ircservices
>