mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Maarten Bosteels" <mbosteels....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: AW: IoSession.write() without WriteFuture
Date Sat, 07 Jun 2008 06:06:24 GMT
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Maarten Bosteels wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Steve Ulrich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Julien Vermillard wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:37:57 +0200
>>>>>> Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Julien Vermillard wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I propose :
>>>>>>>> void write(..) as default
>>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>> WriteFuture writeWithFuture(..);
>>>>>>>> or something else if someone got a better idea because I'm
not sure
>>>>>>>> to have the best wording here ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WDYT ?
>>>>>>>> Julien
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not simply
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void write( ... )
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WriteFuture writeFuture( ... ) ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> damn I'm an idiot ;) how I can missed this solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't want to break backward compatibility, perhaps something
>>>>> like:
>>>>> WriteFuture write(...)
>>>>> void writeAndForget(...)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> We are targeting a 2.0 release, any version before a RC may be changed.
>>>> But
>>>> in order to avoid being stoned by users :), I would suggest to @deprecate
>>>> the previously used methods.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see how we can do that :
>>>
>>> before:
>>> WriteFuture write (Object message);
>>>
>>> after:
>>> void write (Object message);
>>> WriteFuture writeFuture (Object message);
>>>
>>> When we go for these method names, we can't keep the old (deprecated)
>>> signature since it only differs in return type.
>>>
>>> Or am I missng something ?
>>>
>>>
>> No, this was my mistake :)
>>
>> Do we care about breaking backward compatibility ?
>>
>
> I don't think it's that big of a deal going from 1.X - 2.0.  Things change.
> I'd just focus on making the API as coherent as possible.

+1

>
> Alex
>

Mime
View raw message