On 2013-10-16 12:24, John S Warren wrote:
> Just to clarify, the reason I believe it is important to lay out > high-level design alternatives and their implications is because it > will help in making decisions about how the Message class is to be > changed. In other words, the requirements for a class's behavior > might be drastically different, depending on whether it is a > replacement for an existing type (in which case all the possible > use-cases of the existing vs. new type need to be taken into > account) or it is going to be used in a new context, where adherence > to existing behaviors is not a factor. > > My hope was that the design alternatives might be discussed, > possibly other alternatives proposed, and finally an alternative > chosen before proceeding with discussions about implementation > details. Hi John, Have you seen the discussion from the last Oslo meeting? http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/oslo/2013/oslo.2013-10-11-14.00.log.txt I think a lot of these issues came up there. -Ben
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
