galenwarren commented on pull request #303: URL: https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/pull/303#issuecomment-1050104693
> This feels like more of a philosophical design question. Do we want to support replacing the root context (your implementation) of the statefun context or only extending it (mine). Agreed. In my opinion, allowing the inner `statefun.Context` to be reassigned to *any* `context.Context` value -- even one that has no relationship to the original, inner context -- is consistent with how one can choose to send *any* `context.Context` to a downstream Go function -- even one that has no relationship to whatever `context.Context` might have been received by the function -- in a general situation outside of statefun. Of course, this would rarely be done, because the whole point of context is that it should flow from function call to function call, and generally all one does is add new values to an existing context and pass it along. But in general, one can choose to pass any context downstream, and I don't see why we would need to be more restrictive in statefun. Just my two cents, though. What do you think? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
