This sounds mildly silly, but why don't we leave the feature in, but
only enable it based on the presence of a particular feature flag?

Shipping an "experimental" feature which can be toggled on or off
seems like a perfect use case for feature flags.

WDYT?

Justin

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think, let's remove this stuff from the resource resolver for now,
> experiment with the flags in general and once we have a better picture, we
> can add it back again - either in the same way or totally different. We
> could also move the code to a branch or whiteboard so people can install
> the experimental resource resolver.
>
> Carsten
>
>
> 2014-03-20 11:17 GMT-07:00 Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]>:
>
>> The post problem is fixed, btw - features are only evaluated for GET/HEAD
>> requests
>>
>> Carsten
>>
>>
>> 2014-03-20 8:32 GMT-07:00 Justin Edelson <[email protected]>:
>>
>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Justin Edelson
>>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >> ...Feature Flags may look similar to
>>> >> ACLs, but they are useful for a different set of use cases than ACLs.
>>> >> Feature flags are about "orchestrating" features. Resource access is
>>> >> *one* part of this orchestration, but it is not the only part...
>>> >
>>> > Yes, when I said "similar to ACLs" this is specifically about the
>>> > resource access bits that we have in the resource resolver now.
>>> >
>>> > I'm totally convinced of the utility of feature flags in general, it's
>>> > just the magic in the resource resolver that I'm objecting to.
>>>
>>> Where you need that magic (or where it is higher value) is where a
>>> "feature" is composed of both behavioral changes in scripts *and*
>>> resource hiding. That's what I meant by "orchestration" and something
>>> I think would be challenging to do without support in the resource
>>> resolver.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Justin
>>>
>>> >
>>> > -Bertrand
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carsten Ziegeler
>> [email protected]
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> [email protected]

Reply via email to