On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Dan Smith <d...@danplanet.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the delay in responding to this... > > > * Moved the _obj_classes registry magic out of ObjectMetaClass and into > > its own method for easier use. Since this is a subclass based > implementation, > > having a separate method feels more appropriate for a > factory/registry > > pattern. > > This is actually how I had it in my initial design because I like > explicit registration. We went off on this MetaClass tangent, which buys > us certain things, but which also makes certain things quite difficult. > > Pros for metaclass approach: > - Avoids having to decorate things (meh) > - Automatic to the point of not being able to create an object type > without registering it even if you wanted to > > Cons for metaclass approach: > - Maybe a bit too magical > - Can make testing hard (see where we save/restore the registry > between each test) > - I think it might make subclass implementations harder > - Definitely more complicated to understand > > Chris much preferred the metaclass approach, so I'm including him here. > He had some reasoning that won out in the original discussion, although > I don't really remember what that was. > > It's almost always possible to go without metaclasses without losing much relevant brevity, and improving clarity. I strongly recommend against their use. -- IRC: radix Christopher Armstrong Rackspace
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
