On Tue, 2011-06-28, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > On 06/28/2011 01:37 PM, Paul Burba wrote: > > Hi Julian, > > > > I hadn't realized using in-out parameters was considered such bad > > form. > > At a minimum, they force an API divergence in our bindings layers. +1 to > separate and explicit in and out parameters.
Hi Paul. As you noticed, we do use in-outs sometimes, at least privately, so it's not always considered such bad form, but in this case it looks like using separate params would be better for at least a couple of reasons. I wasn't even aware of the bindings issue. > > If we need to change this, then your second alternative, splitting > > the parameter into two, seems the more straightforward option. > > I'm happy to make the change if that is what we want. Thanks. I will just ask once more: as a matter of principle, are we comfortable it's OK to provide only an indication that "the server did in fact do this for you this time", but not to have a way of finding out in general whether the server is capable of doing this? - Julian
