cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Leaky abstractions [was review requests 13238, 13896, 14320]
Date Thu, 03 Oct 2013 20:26:03 GMT
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 09:55:41PM +0200, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>wrote:
> 
> > a model for extensions like that makes perfect sense.
> 
> 
> 
> This model sound fine indeed. It makes no sense for httpClose however.

My personal comment was only about the usefulness of the approach, not
the specific function in question. ;-)

I don't have an opinion either way on this one, since I don't have
enough information to weigh in.

> 
> Here's my concern:
> So when an early adapter is implemented and the rest of the market comes to
> their senses, how do we migrate without running into migration/upgrade
> problems?
> httpClose is a flag controlling connection pooling. I probably choose the
> wrong name. It is something that any implementation will support or should
> have supported already. Am I going to implement it as a key/value now to
> later implemented as I have done anyway? I don't like this idea.
> 
> Don't get me wrong the pattern described by you guys is fine in some
> situations. I don't think it is applicable to this feature.
> 
> regards,
> Daan

Mime
View raw message