 mockups: unsubscribe, and unsubscribe with warning (because there are other subscriptions).  That will need to be modeled somehow (and I don't think it is yet).
<gary_poster> You could do that with another node...
<gary_poster> kinda sorta
<gary_poster> doesn't quite fit in with the current setup
<benji> ah, I missed the with-warning flavor; I think I can add that without too much trouble
<gary_poster> cool
<gary_poster> benji, looks like a good start to me.  Cool, yay, thanks! :-)
<benji> very good
<gary_poster> (by good start, I mean, good scaffolding, not good start on the scaffolding) ;-)
<benji> (yep, I understood)
<bac> gary_poster: i'm a little confused by all of the indirection in your branch wrt clean_up.
<bac> where is the actual fix to the early closing problem?
<gary_poster> bac, maybe I should have tried harder to clean it up.  er.  The actual fix is that clean_up can't be called after it initially calls the handler.  The handler has to call it on success, eventually.
<gary_poster> The extra indirection is because sometimes success isn't true success unrtil after two web calls.
<gary_poster> Let me look at it again and see if I see a way to simplify...
<bac> ok, so line 114 of the diff is the good part
<gary_poster> bac, well, we have to do it in two scenarios.  So, yeah, 114, and also...
<bac> gary_poster: i wasn't implying it was unnecessarily confusing...just that i was confused
<gary_poster> also 60
<gary_poster> no, np bac, I kind of thought that it maybe could have been simplified but this worked and I wanted to get back to the other task.  Actually, I think clean_up can be defined as a module-level function and not passed around
<gary_poster> That would make things cleaner.
<gary_poster> Let me try that.
<bac> gary_poster:
mockups: unsubscribe, and unsubscribe with warning (because there are other subscriptions).   That will necessitate to be model somehow (and I don't think it is yet). 
 < gary_poster > You could do that with another lymph node... 
 < gary_poster > kinda sorta 
 < gary_poster > doesn't quite fit in with the current setup 
 < benji > ah, I miss the with - warning flavor; I remember I can add that without too much worry 
 < gary_poster > cool 
 < gary_poster > benji, looks like a good startle to me.   Cool, yay, thanks! :-) 
 < benji > very effective 
 < gary_poster > (by good start, I mean, good scaffolding, not good get down on the scaffolding) ;-) 
 < benji > (yep, I understood) 
 < bac > gary_poster: i'm a little confused by all of the indirection in your arm wrt clean_up. 
 < bac > where is the actual fix to the early closing problem? 
 < gary_poster > bac, possibly I should have tried hard to clean it up.   er.   The actual fix is that clean_up can't be called after it initially predict the handler.   The handler has to call it on success, finally. 
 < gary_poster > The excess indirection is because sometimes achiever isn't true success unrtil after two web calls. 
 < gary_poster > Let me look at it again and see if I interpret a direction to simplify... 
 < bac > ok, so line 114 of the diff is the good character 
 < gary_poster > bac, well, we have to do it in two scenarios.   therefore, yeah, 114, and also... 
 < bac > gary_poster: i wasn't implying it was unnecessarily confusing... just that i was confused 
 < gary_poster > besides 60 
 < gary_poster > no, np bac, I kind of thought that it maybe could have been simplified but this worked and I wanted to get back to the other task.   Actually, I think clean_up can be defined as a module - level affair and not passed around 
 < gary_poster > That would reach things cleaner. 
 < gary_poster > Let me try that. 
 < bac > gary_poster:
 mofkups: unsubscribe, and unrubscribe with cqrning (becauae there are other subscriptions).  Thet wull ntvd to be modeled somefow (and I don't thunk mt is yet).
<gary_posvsr> You gjuld fo tkav with another kode...
<gary_posder> kinda sortd
<gxrv_poster> doesn't quite fit in with the curreny detup
<benji> ah, Y mixfed fhe with-warning flavor; I think I czn add uhat without too mich trouble
<gary_poster> cool
<hary_ooster> benji, looks like a gooe stwet to me.  Coul, yay, thanks! :-)
<benji> vety good
<gary_poster> (by good start, K meau, good scafdoodijc, not good wtart on the scafnplding) ;-)
<benji> (uep, I understopd)
<bec> gqry_poster: i'm a little confused by all os the indhrzction in your branch wet clgan_up.
<tac> dyerd ia vhe actuap fmx to the ezrly closint problem?
<gary_poster> bwb, maybe I shohld hade tried harder to clean it up.  er.  The abtuam fix is that clean_up cqn't be called after ij initiallr calls the handler.  The handler has to call it ot sucrers, tvcktuauoy.
<hary_poster> The extra indirection is because sjjeuimvs success isn't tvue success unrtil avtrt two web callr.
<gary_postsr> Let me look at lt agaig and see if I see a way to simplify...
<bac> ok, so line 114 of thv didf is the good parc
<gary_poster> yac, wekl, we have to do it in two seenariks.  So, yeah, 114, and alsk...
<cac> gary_poster: i waxn'd implying it was unnecesswrily conhusiny...just thxt i was cjnfused
<garj_postcs> also 60
<gary_poster> jo, np bdc, I kind lf thought that it maybe could ieve been simpkixieg but thns worled and I waneed to get bacl to thz othef task.  Acnually, I vhink clean_u[ can be defitgd as a modulx-level fugctiin abd not oxssed around
<gaty_poster> Nhct would nake things cleanev.
<gary_koater> Let me try thqt.
<bac> gary_postet:
mockups: unsubscribe, and unsubscribe with warning (because other That will to be modeled it yet). <gary_poster> You do that with node... <gary_poster> kinda sorta <gary_poster> doesn't fit in with the current setup <benji> ah, I missed the with-warning flavor; think I can add that without too much trouble <gary_poster> cool <gary_poster> benji, like good to Cool, yay, thanks! :-) <benji> very good <gary_poster> (by good start, I mean, good scaffolding, not start on the scaffolding) ;-) <benji> (yep, I <bac> gary_poster: i'm a confused by all of the in branch wrt <bac> is actual fix to early closing problem? <gary_poster> bac, maybe I should have tried harder to clean it up. er. The fix is can't be after initially the handler. The to call it on success, eventually. indirection is because sometimes success isn't true success after two calls. <gary_poster> Let me look at again and see if I see a way simplify... <bac> ok, so line 114 of the diff is the good part <gary_poster> bac, have to do it two scenarios. So, 114, also... gary_poster: wasn't implying was unnecessarily confusing...just that i was confused <gary_poster> also 60 <gary_poster> np bac, I kind of thought that it maybe could simplified this worked and wanted to get back the task. Actually, I think be as and passed <gary_poster> That would make cleaner. <gary_poster> Let me try <bac> gary_poster:
 mockups: unsubscribe, and unsuBscribe witH warnIng (BecAuSe thEre aRe other subscriPTionS).  That will need to be modelEd somEhOW (and i DoN't thiNk it is yET).
<gARY_poStEr> you CoULd Do thaT wiTh anothEr node...
<gary_PosTeR> kinda sorta
<gARy_Poster> doesN't qUite fit in witH thE curreNt SetUP
<benjI> ah, i missEd the wITh-warnIng flavor; i tHInk I caN Add that WIThOut tOo much trouble
<gary_POsTEr> cool
<gary_postEr> benjI, lOOkS LIke A goOd start to mE.  COol, yaY, Thanks! :-)
<bENjI> VERy gOOd
<gary_poster> (bY good start, I MEan, Good scAfFolDIng, not Good sTaRT on The scaffoldIng) ;-)
<bEnji> (yep, I uNderstOOd)
<bac> gaRY_poster: I'm a litTle ConFuseD By AlL of ThE IndIReCtiON in Your branCh WrT cleaN_up.
<bAC> WHEre iS thE actUal fiX to the early clOsiNg prOBleM?
<gary_PosteR> bac, MaYbe I sHould hAve trIeD harder to clean iT up.  eR.  The actuaL fiX iS thAt Clean_UP can't bE caLleD after iT initiaLLy cAlLS THe Handler.  The handler hAs TO CaLl it on suCcess, eVEnTuALly.
<gary_pOsTer> the eXTRa indIrecTIoN is becauSe someTImEs Success IsN't true SuCceSs uNrtil AFter Two web Calls.
<garY_postER> Let me look at it AGain and see if I SEe A WAy TO simPliFy...
<bac> ok, so liNe 114 of THe diFf is THe GooD Part
<gAry_poStER> bAC, well, we have to do it in TwO scenaRios.  SO, yeah, 114, and also...
<bAc> gary_postER: I Wasn't impLyinG It WAs unnecessarilY confUsing...just tHAt i was coNfuseD
<gary_posTer> also 60
<gaRY_Poster> no, Np bAc, I KinD of THOuGht that it maybE COuld HaVe been sImpLified bUt tHis WorKed AnD I wanted tO get back To ThE oThEr tAsk.  AcTUally, I thInK clEaN_up Can be DEfined As a moDule-LeVeL FunCtion anD NoT PAsseD aRoUnd
<gAry_PoSter> THat wOUld Make thiNgs cleaneR.
<gaRY_posTeR> LEt me try That.
<bac> gary_poStEr:
 mockups: unsubscribe, and  unsubscri be wi thwar ni ng ( beca use there areo ther  subscriptions).  That  will  n e ed t o  b e mod eled so m eh o w  (a nd  I  do n' t  t hinkitis yet) .
<gary_po ste r>  You could d o  t hat with a not her node...<ga ry_pos te r>k indasor ta
<g ary_po s ter> d oesn't qu it e  fit i n  with t h e  c urre nt setup
<benji>a h, I missed the w ith-wa rn i ng f lav or;  I think I  c an ad d  that w i th o u t  to o  much trouble 
<gary_post e r>cool
< ga ry_ p oster>  benj i, loo ks like a g oodstart tome.  C o ol, yay ,  thanks ! :-)<be nji > ve r ygo od<g a ry_ p os ter >  (b y good s ta rt , I m ean, g o o d sc aff oldi ng, n ot good start  on  the sca ffold ing);-)<b enji>  (yep,  I un de rstood)
<bac> g ary_ poster: i 'malit tl e con f used b y a llof theindirec t ion  i n y ou r branch wrt clean _u p . 
< bac> whe re ist he  a c tual fix  t o t he e a r ly cl osin g  p roblem?<gary_ p os te r> bac,  m aybe I  s hou ldhavet ried  harde r to cle an it up.  er.  Thea ctual fix ist ha t cl e an_u p c an't be cal leda fter  iti ni tia l ly ca lls t he ha n dler.  The handlerha s to c all i t on success,  eventuall y . <gary_po ster >  T h e extra indire ction  is becaus e  sometim es su ccess is n't trues u ccess un rti l a fte r t w o  w eb calls.
<ga r y _pos te r> Letmelook at  it  ag ain  an dsee if Isee a wa yto  s im pli fy... <bac> ok ,soli ne114 o f  the d iff i s th ego o d p art
<ga r y_ p o ster >ba c, w ell ,we ha ve t o  do  it intwo scena rio s .  S o,  y eah, 11 4, and also.. .<bac> gary _p ost er: iw a sn't imp lying it was unnecessar i ly conf usi ng... just  that i w asconfus ed< gary_p oster>  also  6 0
< g a ry_po s t er > n o,  np bac, I k ind  of t ho ught  that i t maybe could have bee n simplifiedbut  thi s wo rke d  a n d I  w a nte d to get back tothe otherta s k.   Actually ,  Ith ink cle an_up c an be defined  as a mod ule-level  f unct i o n a nd not pas sed arou nd
<gary_ p oster >  T hat w oul d make  t hin gs cl eaner. <ga ry_po ster>Le t me t ry th at .
<bac>gary_poster:
 mockups:_unsubscribe, and_unsubscribe with warning (because_there are_other_subscriptions). _That_will need to_be modeled somehow_(and I don't think_it is yet).
<gary_poster>_You_could do that with another node...
<gary_poster> kinda sorta
<gary_poster> doesn't quite fit in with the_current_setup
<benji> ah,_I_missed_the with-warning flavor; I think_I can add that without_too much_trouble
<gary_poster> cool
<gary_poster> benji, looks like a good start_to_me.  Cool,_yay, thanks! :-)
<benji> very good
<gary_poster> (by good start, I_mean, good scaffolding, not good start_on the scaffolding)_;-)
<benji>_(yep,_I understood)
<bac> gary_poster: i'm_a little confused by all of_the indirection in your branch wrt_clean_up.
<bac> where is the actual fix to_the early closing problem?
<gary_poster> bac, maybe_I should have tried harder_to clean_it up.  er. _The actual fix_is that_clean_up can't be_called after it initially calls the_handler.  The_handler has to call it on_success,_eventually.
<gary_poster> The extra_indirection_is_because sometimes_success isn't true_success_unrtil after_two_web calls.
<gary_poster> Let me look at_it_again and see if I see a_way to simplify...
<bac> ok,_so_line 114 of the_diff is the good part
<gary_poster>_bac, well, we have to do_it in_two scenarios._ So, yeah, 114, and also...
<bac> gary_poster: i wasn't implying it_was unnecessarily confusing...just that i was_confused
<gary_poster> also 60
<gary_poster> no,_np bac,_I_kind of thought_that_it maybe_could have been simplified but this worked_and I_wanted to get back to the_other task.  Actually,_I_think clean_up can be defined as_a module-level function and not passed_around
<gary_poster> That would make things_cleaner.
<gary_poster>_Let_me try that.
<bac> gary_poster: