Let's not talk here about cultures. Let's talk about the development
process. If you have something to say about the issue, say it. But keep
in mind - being friendly is more important than being polite or even right
You should consider cultural differences yourself. You are posting in
forums moderated by people who are allowed to moderate how they
choose. If you found a critical bug, that is an appropriate use of a
github issue. Changing comments, being offensive, and asking questions
that should go on a mailing list or in IRC (as was mentioned) is not.
Being right means nothing if you can't communicate this in a way that
your target audience will listen to.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:04 AM, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
So what do we have:
> While it is not proven
a) If it's not proven, we can agree that it doesn't prevent
circular references at all (for me it's obvious), before someone
can proof that is does, right?
b) You've fixed the misleading part of the documentation with my
help, because of a) right?
At least I've heard something that makes sense: you test your code
with the help of Devel::Cycle and want hide leaks outside an
object. We are not talking about is this good or bad, it just has
a reason. If someone told me that before closing a ticket (showing
how smart he is), I would have saved a lot of time and only would
point that the documentation is incorrect.
I also can show an example where and when to use IOC. I'm working
on Mango right now and found a big security issue:
https://metacpan.org/pod/Mango#credentials
my $m = Mango::->new('mongodb://user:[email protected]
<mailto:mongodb://user:[email protected]>');
say Dumper $m;
I was very surprised when I found that Mango keeps my password as
is. (I hope don't need to explain why).
So this is a good candidate for H::U::F (but we also have to
prepare creds before saving it)
P.S.:
And about to being civil. Did you ever think maybe we have a kind
of cultural differences?
In my country the word doesn't matter, only an action matter.
Words are used as a way to communicate only and can't be
offensive, but actions can be.
And if one person knows, that other one is mistaken, the first one
should push as hard as he can to prove it and help, and the other
one will be grateful in the future. Why? Because if you had a
chance to help other person and missed it (or did nothing) - you
did a very bad thing. There is a special boiler in the Hell for
indifferent people.
But in the other hand there are cultures where almost every
sentence without "dear" or "friend" sounds like a personal
offence. But we still can communicate east cultures, right?
Because computers work the same way for everyone, no matter what
is a color of your skin (with the exception for redheads, for
redheads comptures work 15% slower).
And instead of "alexbyk, ur right, thank you, ur awesome" I got a
ban for "changing comments and being offensive". This is
ridiculous. If I find some critical bug in the future, how do I
suppose to report it? Developers should see things more widely and
wisely
So the question is, which one of equal variants is better and
more simple?
While it is not proven that using fieldhash actively prevents
circular references in the Mojo::IOLoop::Delay scenario, it does
help avoiding false positives with Devel::Cycle.
perl -Ilib -Mojo -MDevel::Cycle -E 'my $ua =
Mojo::UserAgent->new; Mojo::IOLoop->delay(sub { my $d = shift;
$ua->get("mojolicio.us <http://mojolicio.us>" => $d->begin);
find_cycle $d }, sub { $ua->get("mojolicio.us
<http://mojolicio.us>" => shift->begin) }, sub {})->wait'
Without fieldhash you would see a circular reference here.
Cycle (1):
$Mojo::IOLoop::Delay::A->{'remaining'} => \@B
$B->[0] => \&C
$C variable $ua => \$D
$$D => \%Mojo::UserAgent::E
$Mojo::UserAgent::E->{'connections'} => \%F
$F->{'c92d527d9db95e50179b96ba1d71d8dd'} => \%G
$G->{'cb'} => \&H
$H variable $self => \$I
$$I => \%Mojo::IOLoop::Delay::A
But a totally harmless one, because it gets automatically
resolved once the callback has been consumed. I'd rather not have
these false positives in Devel::Cycle output, and therefore
consider the current solution superior.
--
sebastian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Mojolicious" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mojolicious.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Mojolicious" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mojolicious.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Mojolicious" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mojolicious.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Mojolicious" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mojolicious.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
