Hi Benson, I concur with what you say, CTR is just fine for these kind of changes.
On 21.03.2013 08:39, Benson Margulies wrote: > So, I'm going to adopt the following increment on this little effort, and > see if anyone objects. > > My view is that CTR is plenty good for plumbing like this; it is not > radical, it is incrementally adjustable, and, anyway, I can always roll it > back if someone is disturbed. > > In my idea of a perfect world these days, we'd go to git, and any time > anyone was in an RTC mood, they could push a branch. > > Meanwhile, technically speaking, the change doesn't work without more > changes. There's no point in obtaining the document if the only field in it > is the idfield. So some more adjusting is needed to allow control of the > fields. Since the class already has what I'd consider to be an alarmingly > long constructor arg list, I plan to split out the doc retrieval into a > method, make some fields protected, and expect to subclass in my own code. > If there are any other low-hanging opportunities to support > adaptation-via-subclass, I'll get them. > > That will leave the Iterable subclass orphaned for my purposes, but I don't > care. The Guava people make a case for wrapping an iterator in an immutable > collection to obtain an Iterable. > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Looks like a great idea. >> >> We are very weak RTC. Some things are pretty obviously good ideas and low >> risk so we wind up doing something like CTR. >> >> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Benson Margulies <[email protected] >>> wrote: >> >>> Anyone have any objections? >>> >>> Are we still formally RTC? >>> >> >
