On 12/03/15 18:13, Ian Booth wrote: > I see the point. But it could be considered analogous to having lots of > methods > called New() etc. So long as the types are relevant for the package in which > they're declared then isn't that ok? If we have lots of packages where state > needs to be persisted, how is that different to having lots of packages where > a > struct needs to be created, hence there will be several different New() > methods. > > Many of the current usages are client facades in the various API packages, > which > is indeed unfortunate and I wish were different. But let's not universally > reject State types without considering the intended semantics.
*cough* *bullshit* *cough* State is a terrible name for a structure. I've also heard you say as much before too. I think people have just gotten lazy, and rather than thinking of a more appropriate name, just use State because others have. I know I'm guilty of doing this. I'm with Dave on this one. Think about this... describe the job to someone (or a teddy bear). Sure it is the state of the instance, but the state of what? Tim > > > > On 12/03/15 15:01, David Cheney wrote: >> lucky(~/src/github.com/juju/juju) % pt -i type\ State\ | wc -l >> >> 23 >> >> Thank you. >> >> Dave >> > -- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
