cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Leaky abstractions [was review requests 13238, 13896, 14320]
Date Thu, 03 Oct 2013 20:44:56 GMT
I know and I was underlining that in the part of my mail you didn't quote.
:p


On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>wrote:

> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message