perl-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stas Bekman <s...@stason.org>
Subject Re: [mp2] Report on mp2 accessors in apache_structures.map
Date Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:17:19 GMT
Geoffrey Young wrote:
> 
> Stas Bekman wrote:
> 
>>Thanks for making the mp1 vs mp2 API get/set comparison and the patch,
>>Fred. Your original version is now mostly integrated in various commits.
>>
>>I'm not quite agreeing with Philippe and Geoff. Blindly opening up
>>fields, which have no special ap_ accessors for them is probably a good
>>recipe into getting in troubles. I know Geoff's favorite phrase is "give
>>them the feature and they will find the use for it". In this particular
>>case, I'd suggest to be more cautious and leave things readonly until
>>someone will ask to open up the accessor(s) to be settable. 
> 
> 
> looks like it was more than a suggestion, since you went ahead and committed
> the changes despite the comments from philippe and I.

Not quite so. I've committed the current state of things, matching the 
documentation and tests.

>>If you think some method should be settable, come up with an example
>>where it'll be useful, 
> 
> 
> I believe we did that in all cases where we wanted to maintain writability.

definitely far far away from all cases.

>>It doesn't
>>take more than 1 second to open it up.
> 
> 
>>make it a test and see if it works, then open it
>>up. I know we have quite a few methods whose settable functionality is
>>not tested, but it really should.
> 
> 
> these both go to the point we have discussed before, and which I thought we
> had agreed upon, namely that 2.0 should be API freeze for documented and
> tested methods, but that we would allow untested methods/functionalities in
> under the caveat that the interface may change or completely go away.  isn't
> that what we had agreed upon?

Yes, we did and that's what happening so far (in case you were following 
the development in the API docs area). For the moment a method is either 
supported or not, as a whole, not partial functionality.

We weren't talking about the more granular unsupported functionality.

I suppose we could introduce that more granular unsupported feature, 
when for example the settability of some method could be marked as 
experimental. But we can just as well do that in one of the releases 
following 2.0. How does that sound?

If you like the idea may be we should list the potential settable 
accessors somewhere in todo files?

-- 
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/     mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org   http://ticketmaster.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org


Mime
View raw message