On 20/09/16 05:14, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Cedric BAIL <cedric.b...@free.fr> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Tom Hacohen <t...@stosb.com> wrote:
>>> We haven't agreed on merging Eo, Efl and Ecore. I'm actually pretty much
>>> against it.
>> There was a thread weeks ago. You indeed didn't take part of that
>> discussion, but everyone else involved in that thread was ok. Actually
>> the discussion evolved more into a what else to merge in. So their was
>> an agreement before this email.
>>> Eo is clean and hasn't been "polluted" by async, mainloop and etc. That's a
>>> good thing. This makes our infrastructure easier to test.
>> Please define "clean" as it is a bit abstract to me here. What I am
>> looking for here is the minimal set of component I need to have
>> something useful. Is Eo useful by itself ? With just Efl.Object ? Sure
>> you could do C without the C library, but would you ?
>> I think that your disagreement about merging is only and just because
>> you do not want to make asynchronous request a core feature of EFL.
>> The rest is mostly rhetoric. Could you please explain why you have so
>> much resistance to it being rolled into more place in efl ?
> [...]
>> I don't want to just compile them together. I want to merge there
>> headers. Make it just one library. Make efl.object, efl.future and
>> efl.loop one core. Obviously because I want to see efl as providing a
>> core asynchronous library with defined pattern. One asynchronous
>> pattern is "events", which is like an UDP broadcast (default
>> behavior)/multicast (with effort) solution. Efl.Future is more the
>> equivalent of a TCP connection. I think providing one without the
>> other is going to push for a world of broadcast solution which is not
>> always the right pattern. Maybe we should remove events support from
>> Eo to avoid this problem.
> +10000 fully agree with Cedric's rationale. Eo's purpose should be
> solely to serve Efl's use cases, which means asynchronous event driven
> programming.

I'll reply to cedric in a moment, but in the meanwhile:

> promise/future should be first-class citizen... as well as iterator
> and the likes. There is a start already, but refinement is really
> needed, like returning an iterator<x> should handle warn_unused, free,
> own... Promise should have its own callback signature, simplified for
> the user.

They can, be, but they will just be provided by Eo. There's no need for 
any special treatment in Eo.

Promise signature: you don't need to do it in Eo. I mean, you can add a 
special type in Eolian, but Eo itself need not be aware. Also, I disagree.

> AND if possible, make eolian or a new tool to handle connections for
> us, if it was easy to declare objects with composition of
> events/promises, it would save us lots of typing and errors.

I'm not sure what you meant here.


enlightenment-devel mailing list

Reply via email to