[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
[dsdp-tm-dev] Vote Summary: API changes on RSE?
|
Dear committers,
from our 8 committers, we've got 7 votes +1,
Michael Scharf did not vote yet.
I think that's sufficient for DaveM to go forward making this change,
and it also encourages us to allow final API fixes until the latest
possible time.
Michael - you'll still have the chance to give a final veto within one
week if you are against this. Please do cast your vote even though we
are going forward already.
Given Lother's comment as a user, I'd suggest trying to get the API
right this time even if it's a little bit more effort - so I'd rather
not do this in a 2-step approach unless the effort is too high.
Mimimizing risk is still more important right now than polishing too
much. So Dave, please use good judgement in how much you want to invest.
Thanks for tackling this.
Cheers
Martin
Martin Oberhuber schrieb:
Dear committers,
Dave McKnight has proposed an API change to the IRemoteFileSubSystem
and IRemoteProcessSubSystem in order to add progress monitors to some
method calls, such that there is a chance to cancel long running
operations.
My personal take is, that although its already very late in the game
I'd like to accept such API changes because it appears that
1. We dont have many clients on openRSE yet. At least none that I'd
know of.
2. Those API changes appear simple and straightforward.
3. API changes will become much more difficult than now as soon as we
have 1.0 released, so better do it now than in the future.
4. The API changes will enable our users to write interruptable
services, i.e. allow something not possible today. So even if our own
services are not all interruptable yet, it's important to open up the
API for allowing interruptable services in the future.
Considering all this, I'm voting +1.
Committers please cast your votes.
Thanks
Martin
David McKnight schrieb:
1) I did consider putting this to a vote but then thought it was too
trivial a change for that. It was really something that should have
been done from the start but it was an oversight. At this point I
haven't committed anything since I wanted to see the reaction to my
email and I guess that was a good thing.
2) I was wondering about the order of arguments too - I suppose the
last argument is consistent with RSE, although, I'm not sure how
consistent it is with other things. I guess the natural thing would
be to place it at the end. I would like to make the corresponding
changes to the list*() APIs for IRemoteProcessSubSystem as well. I'm
still not sure whether we should have monitors for all the methods
right now without taking a closer look at their usages. I'm
wondering if maybe we ought to phase this in two parts: first to deal
with queries (the most obvious case) and second phase to deal with
the other subsystem calls. Any thoughts on that?
Before getting into the details, I suppose we may as well have a vote
on whether or not we should make any API changes at this point.
____________________________________
David McKnight Phone: 905-413-3902 , T/L: 969-3902
Internet: dmcknigh@xxxxxxxxxx
Mail: D1/140/8200/TOR
--
Martin Oberhuber
Wind River Systems, Inc.
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
