+1 Aaron
> On Dec 6, 2019, at 10:49 AM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > >> On Dec 6, 2019, at 9:40 AM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> >> Regarding changing PoolManager to >> an interface, I guess originally I wasn't thinking we would still be >> backwards compatible if we did that. But as I think about it I think that >> might be ok. One slight issue with that approach is that we have to come up >> with new names for the methods - we can't have both an instance and a >> static method with the same name and args. Maybe still worth it > > Doh! I didn’t think about that. It sort of defeats the purpose of reusing the > class. So going with a whole new class probably makes more sense to remove > confusion. > > -Jake >
