On Mon, 2014-11-17 at 20:56 +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 11/17/2014 08:14 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> > As we currently don't have reviewboard set up for Qpid Proton (since the
> > git migration).
> >
> > I've posted a pull request against the Github Apache proton mirror to
> > get review feedback for my IO layer refactoring.
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/1
> >
> > Please give it some attention, I know that Rafi would like this change
> > to go in quickly as some important changes are queued up behind  it.
> 
> I'm confused around the intention with regards to backward 
> compatibility. There seem to be changes that would break this, which is 
> entirely fine, but then old functions are retained but deprecated. If 
> the contract is indeed broken in some way, I think it would be better 
> not to retain functions that are no longer intended for use.

I don't think previously working code will stop working with these
changes (but I've not extensively tried). In other words I don't think
there is a broken contract at least not for pn_transport_t.

Previously there was no transport server/client distinction, which
effectively made the transport what is the current client transport
which is why that is the default.

As for pn_sasl_t. This now exactly follows the transport, so I guess
there is a possible broken contract.

In either case I'm very happy to remove the deprecated APIs - I have
left the change so this is trivially easy. Rafi suggested leaving them
in so I left them in.

> 
> In a similar vein for the python binding, for the Transport constructor, 
> I think it would be better to insist that either a c transport object or 
> a mode is provided, rather than defaulting to a client.

I'd be happy with this although as I said above the previous usage is
equivalent to the new client transport.

If you feel strongly, and there is no dissent I will follow this advice.

Andrew



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to