On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 09:55:41PM +0200, Daan Hoogland wrote: > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Chip Childers > <chip.child...@sungard.com>wrote: > > > a model for extensions like that makes perfect sense. > > > > This model sound fine indeed. It makes no sense for httpClose however.
My personal comment was only about the usefulness of the approach, not the specific function in question. ;-) I don't have an opinion either way on this one, since I don't have enough information to weigh in. > > Here's my concern: > So when an early adapter is implemented and the rest of the market comes to > their senses, how do we migrate without running into migration/upgrade > problems? > httpClose is a flag controlling connection pooling. I probably choose the > wrong name. It is something that any implementation will support or should > have supported already. Am I going to implement it as a key/value now to > later implemented as I have done anyway? I don't like this idea. > > Don't get me wrong the pattern described by you guys is fine in some > situations. I don't think it is applicable to this feature. > > regards, > Daan
