From: Jon S. B. <jon...@co...> - 2009-06-27 18:52:11
|
> > Erik's solution seems more clever since the Ron's and my reference > > counting one could cause troubles if (e.g.) slave FDMs could be > removed or > > added in any order during a run (removing one FDM would make the next > one > > added reuse the highest numbered tree - which might not have belonged > to > > the one removed). > > > > So, I say we stick with the solution Erik committed. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Anders > > Right. My idea was only stream of consciousness on IRC anyway. > > Thanks, > > Ron Ron, I believe your solution is still the most proper. Any time a multiple FDM would be used, the child FDMs would be "resident" for the entire run that the parent was in existence. Child FDMs will not ever be removed and additional ones added during a run. It is possible that a child FDM may cease integrating, but child FDMs are inherent and inseparable characteristics of a parent/child flight model. Jon |